SAE SSH 
SSS x ASS 


ES 
S 
SSS 


Ss 


SS 
SS 

ws 
. SV 


SSNS 
= 


~ 
< 


S SI 
SSS 
SEN 
SR 
WS 


Se 


we 
SS 
SS 
OS 


see 


< 


SSS 
SEES 
4 


Nae 
Tena 


SS 


SSS 
OSS 


SSS 
SSS a 


SS WSS 


SES 
oS 
SS 


a 
Sys 


SSS 


San 


= 


iow abare rent’ 
AS 





Ay An GF PHI 


Mar s 
MA 1.01926 





. - © . ~ i A / a \ 
Division (Jf + 36 


Section «4 & <4 












a th ¥ 
Wat Pi See ‘yi 
idee } 

he 
: 





wha 
AL} Pi: 








i. 


ail’ 


















Vv 
Sal 10 1926 












By THEO. “GRAEBNER 


Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Mo. 


Author of “Evolution: An Investigation and a Criticism’’ 

















St. Louis, Mo. 


CONCORDIA PUBLISHING HOUSE 
1925 








THE ESSAYS IN THIS VOLUME ARE RE- 
PRINTED, WITH REVISIONS, FROM THE 


THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY, THE LUTHERAN 
WITNESS, AND THE WALTHER LEAGUE 
MESSENGER. 





Copyright, 1925. 
CONCORDIA PUBLISHING HOUSE, 
Str. Louis, Mo. 


jd jae 


Table of Contents. 


PAGE 

Introduction: The Dayton Trial—an Aftermath .............. 5 

Hee Chem Goniictere ue ctu citaeccre onus mers cake eee sie etste o's ein vig ea « 1g 
Dae VOI LION ANG pReEVel a GlO Neer areas fe rte ties cialis ince rateck ese a1 oes ssydlie ile) aie) 6 26 
Bit eT CTINANONCE OF ISPOCLES. sabia lniette a snal sales “aio vin shh tle sets supe + andes 34 
Aree Dee Barrier cole NSLINCt maddie ccctstets Secs dee ieee lant eee ne cron; «eteiaeelanaleits 39 
DeeHivOlULION SANE DISEASE eer aus, spake cleccue ree cae 6. os Gen cienss she) 5-0, Sus duals 44 
6. The Assured Results of Science and Dr. Einstein ............... 48 
7. Haeckel’s Fictitious Links and Certain Pliocene Remains ........ 51 
8. Evolution of Man — The Verdict of History .................... 61 
BD AS Kane LONE AES, INGE W Ae ints Me coca ene cue men Oat see MIE NCR ih eae a So A 69 
free Laie a OMA CTR VEN heres Neracly tics se Aes oxalate Vatele ely Gea eles ogee 92 
ieeUnsolvedeMysteries: Off Liveryva Dayacre sities citi ce asses she lee 97 


» 
‘ 
4 
¢ 
‘ 
Ay 
‘ 
* 
~~ 
» 
‘ 
-# 
. 
\ 
* 
’ 
. 
\ 
- 
. 
a 
Uy 
: : * 
- 
P ‘ 





4 de da den dander dando dan dordsndandandandend 
y, NY. y, Y: af y. ¥: Ys cy. y,. y, Ve y, y, 6 y; 











Introduction. 


The Dayton Trial— An Aftermath. 


The decision came July 21, 1925, when John Thomas Scopes, 
twenty-four-year-old high school teacher of Dayton, Tenn., was 
found guilty of violating the Tennessee Anti-Evolution Law. When 
the jury had returned its verdict, Judge Raulston summoned Scopes 
before the bar and imposed a fine of $100. 

Attorney-General Stewart had thus stated the case of the State 
when the trial opened: “John T. Scopes, a teacher in the Rhea 
County High School, violated the Anti-Evolution Law by teaching 
a theory that man descends from a lower order of animal life, and 
therefore taught a theory which denies the story of divine creation 
of man as set forth in the Bible. This is in violation of the Anti- 
Evolution Law.” 

Bail for Seopes was fixed at $500, pending appeal of the case 
to the Supreme Court of Tennessee at Knoxville. 

Since then we have had the aftermath. 

The climax probably came with the Associated Press announce- 
ment of the excommunication of E. A. Kundred by the Lutheran 
church at Kendallville, Ind. Kundred is a gladiolus grower, and 
the church authorities decided that in hybridizing his gladioli to 
produce new varieties he was interfering with the divine scheme of 
things. They voted that “if the Almighty had wanted gladioli to 
be hybridized, He would have made them that way,” and excommuni- 
eated Mr. Kundred. Now, according to the statement of Pastor M. F. 
Kretzmann, of Kendallville, Mr. Kundred never was a member of 
the Lutheran Church, probably never attended church after his 
confirmation, has not lived in the neighborhood of the Kendallville 
church for the last eighteen years, and was certainly never dealt 
with in the manner described in the press dispatches. But this 
disavowal will never overtake the sensational report, and the excom- 
munication of the Indiana hybridizer of gladioli will go down in 
history in connection with the Dayton trial as an example of the 
opposition of the Church to modern science. 


6 INTRODUCTION. 


Meanwhile the Ku Klux Klan has once more come to the rescue 
of Christianity. It had sponsored the Anti-Evolution Bill and will 
devote to the suppression of the Darwinian doctrine hereafter what 
strength it can spare from its fight upon K. C’s, Kykes, and Koons. 

In London, Prof. George M. Price, the geologist who believes in 
the Genesis account of Creation, was howled down by the audience 
when he appeared for a lecture entitled, “Is Evolution True?” 

In Jewell County, Kans., the school board of a rural district 
ordered a set of books burned which contained a discussion of the 
theory of evolution. 


From Oslo to Adelaide. 


But these are high spots only. The discussion of the Dayton 
trial has reverberated around the earth. I have before me a copy of 
Hjemmet, published in Oslo, Norway, containing on its first page 
pictures of the Neanderthaler and of Pithecanthropus, illustrating 
an article on the “Adventure of Man’s Origin.” The author is one 
of the multitude upon whose mind the judgment of anatomists 
regarding these reconstructions has made as little impression as water 
running over a marble slab. 

Presbyterian and Anglican papers in Australia have come to 
the rescue of Darrow, describing the whole action of the State of 
Tennessee as “handcuffs on science” and protesting that “we need 
no longer apologize for saying that man has developed from a lower 
animal life.” An Anglican theologian addresses a Melbourne paper 
with a letter, pointing out that it has long been recognized by all 
educated Christians that “much of the Bible is the poetic and alle- 
gorical representation of religious ideas, and to regard these books 
as literal science and history is to misunderstand the intention of 
their writers, indeed, to misunderstand the whole nature of the 
essentially poetic Hebrew ways of thinking.” The “farmers and 
townspeople of the American Middle West” are held up to the 
Australians as horrible examples of “folks who have allowed their 
minds to grow hard and rigid from disuse and who are apt to 
take a short way with notions which threaten their certitudes.” 

Thus Dayton is more than an incident, it is a shibboleth. 
Around it rages, and will continue to rage for a long time, the 
controversy between Creation and Evolution, and the world-views 
which these two words represent. The attempt which was made by 
the lawyers for the defense to inject the discussion of the truth or 
falsity of evolutionary doctrine into the trial was unsuccessful. But 
enough was said both by the defense and by the prosecution to 
reveal the underlying issues. And these issues are not so much two 
mutually exclusive views of the beginning of things as two diametri- 


INTRODUCTION. ts 


cally opposed attitudes regarding the truth of Revelation. In this 
there is no little merit. The American people may remember little 
even now regarding the wrangles of lawyers in the Dayton court 
July 10—21. But they do remember, and will remember, Darrow’s 
protest against opening the court with prayer. They will overlook 
the constitutional justice of that protest; they will recognize in it 
an attitude. Darrow, the atheist, protesting against prayer, will 
remain to millions an Emblem. 


The Blunder of the Defense. 


And, indeed, if ever that hatred of revealed Truth and Divine 
Law which we have elsewhere termed the “Fatal Bias” of the evolu- 
tionists has led them into a series of egregious blunders, it was in 
the Tennessee trial. Mr. Bryan’s comment upon the employment of 
an atheist as chief counsel —of Darrow, the defender of the young 
Chicago murderers, who had stressed their faith in evolution — was 
unanswerable, withering. Millions have read his statement and 
have nodded their assent: “Mr. Darrow’s connection with this case 
and his conduct during this case ought to inform the Christian 
world of the real animus that is back of those who are attempting 
to enforce upon the schools the views of a small minority, regardless 
of the fact that the philosophy of life based upon evolution robs the 
individual of a sense of responsibility to God and paralyzes the 
doctrine of brotherly love.” 

Well might the New York World say: “The truth is that when 
Mr. Darrow, in his anxiety to humiliate and ridicule Bryan, resorted 
to sneering and scoffing at the Bible, he convinced millions who act 
on superficial impressions that Bryan is right in his assertion that 
the contest at Dayton was for and against the Christian religion.” 

The clause “who act on superficial impressions,” sounds uncon- 
vineing, particularly also in view of the fact that Darrow’s right- 
hand bower was the Unitarian clergyman Potter of New York, who 
soon after the trial boasted “that he was the religious expert who 
wrote out the questions which Darrow presented to Bryan,” and who 
in the same interview, in reply to a direct question, said it would 
be “perfectly possible for a Christian church to accept an agnostic 
as a pastor.” Even the thinking millions will find a strange agree- 
ment between Potter’s assertion that we “don’t think that God made 
man; we think that man made God,” and the declaration of a Jewish 
infidel, Rabbi Urich of Milwaukee, who in his comment on the 
Tennessee trial said: “God is an instance of evolution, for He is 
merely the creation of man’s mind. The science of religion proves 
that God did not create in His own image, but that man created God 


8 INTRODUCTION. 


in his image. What we must do is to pull God down from the 
heavens and have Him inhabit the earth; not merely reside in the 
ethereal vacuum.” 

So far, good and well. The world has heard Darrow state with 
all possible clearness that the intention of the defense lawyers was 
to “turn back the tide that has sought to force itself on the modern 
world — the testing every fact of science by religious dogma.” Those 
who remember the fanatical crusade which Huxley waged against 
the Bible (Science and Hebrew Tradition, p.X: “The infallibility of 
Seripture delenda est. Essays in present and following volume are, 
for the most part, intended to contribute to this process of deletion”) 
will not fail to see the point of a remark made by Forrest Bailey 
of the American Civil Liberties Union (which backed the defense) : 
“This case offers a unique opportunity to take the wind out of the 
Fundamentalists’ sails and to do even more effectively what Huxley 
did in England and America between 1860 and 1880.” 


Where the Church Failed. 


All this is so clear that he who runs may read. The line-up 
was between the believers in supernatural Revelation and those who 
deny it. Now, what the people might have expected in the aftermath 
of the Dayton trial is a clear and unmistakable line between the 
Church, which must stake everything upon the inerrancy of the 
Bible, on the one hand, and the forces of infidelity, on.the other. 
What has actually happened must be a great disillusionment to those 
who harbored such hopes. Not only scientists who announce their 
belief in religion, but even Protestant clergymen have allied them- 
selves with Darrow. 

Typical of the Modernist attitude is a series of articles con- 
tributed by Rey. Geo. E. Hunt (Presbyterian), of Madison, Wis., to 
the Milwaukee Journal. The Bible “makes no claim to divinity,” 
“does not claim to have been dictated by God.” Hunt declaims 
against “the ancient notion of a divinely dictated book, sent from 
heaven to guide men into all knowledge,” and against the “liter- 
alists”: “These bats and owls who live among the dry cobwebs and 
ancient dust of theological lofts, who have voiced their sad hoots at 
the teaching of evolution.” He is unable to accept the time-honored 
belief “that God took a lump of clay, molded it with His hands into 
the form of His own body, and then breathed into this clay image 
the living spirit, and that this was done in a single day of twenty- 
four hours.” 

The Lutheran clergy has entered the lists in defense of the 
doctrine of Creation, the only rift in the lute being a newspaper 


INTRODUCTION. 9 


article by Rev. Newton H. Boyer of the United Lutheran Church, 
who in the Daily Oklahoman answers with a decisive No the ques- 
tion: “Is the Creation of Genesis Literally True?” “If I were 
a literalist,” he says, “I would have to believe that serpents would 
always have to crawl on their bellies because one once tempted Eve. 
If I were a literalist, I would be under the necessity of believing 
that God cursed the earth; weeds, noxious growth, are the results 
of man’s sin; in other words, that unconscious, inanimate nature 
suffers for what my ancestors did; I would be obliged to believe that 
God often acted at the prompting of a whim, a caprice, and that 
His eternal judgments are based on an arbitrary desire to punish. 
All of which is either pagan in conception or utterly irrational.” 

To all of which Clarence S. Darrow would unhesitatingly 
subscribe. 

The effect of such sponsorship of the evolutionary theory by 
Christian clergymen must be greatly confusing to the man in 
the pew. The saying of our Lord regarding those who deserve that 
a millstone be tied around their neck surely applies to these infidels 
in the pulpit. 

Introducing a Withered Virgin. 


Nevertheless, the expressions of the lawyers and experts in 
attendance at the Dayton trial contain scant comfort for the camp- 
followers of evolution. Science falsely so called was represented by 
some of its spokesmen, yet never has looked to us so much like 
a godless Samson who “thought he could go out and shake himself 
as of old, but he could not.” Really, there is no more telling argu- 
ment against evolution than the words of its spokesmen who ad- 
dressed the crowds at Dayton or made the trial an occasion for 
interviews to the daily press. 

Dr. M. M. Metcalf, a Johns Hopkins professor of Zoology, admits 
concerning the lowly beginnings of organized matter that “their 
nature is not by any means fully understood,” yet bravely continues: 
“Now from these first living things which could live on inorganic 
substances there developed a whole series of forms,” etc. A little 
farther down follows this classical expression worthy of being pasted 
on the wind-shield of all Americans who have their first infection of 
evolutionism : — 

“The difference in the development of animals and plants was 
largely due to their food habits. The plants stood still and let food 
come to them while animals hustled for it. The consequence was 
that animals developed organs for moving themselves and for grasp- 
‘ing food, and these developments led in turn to many other changes 
and advances, so that the divergence between animal and plant life 


10 INTRODUCTION. 


became increasingly broad” —! <A theory is in its second childhood 
that can offer such mythological meditations to the public and eall 
them “science.” 

An extremely unsuccessful wriggle we would call the statement 
of Prof. M. F. Guyer, Wisconsin University professor of Zoology. 
He is now satisfied to call evolution “change” and let it go at that. 
He said in an interview: “Evolution does not always mean progress 
from simple to more complex forms, though that is the generally 
understood definition. To the scientist it means change. Most of 
these changes are from simpler to more complex forms; but there 
are other instances of what we call regressive evolution, where the 
process is reversed.” 

It is when confronted with such expressions as quoted that we 
hesitate to call evolution a scientific hypothesis. A hypothesis, if 
worthy of the designation “scientific,” must be a proposition not 
contradicted by the facts which it is intended to explain. Yet every 
effort to raise the evolutionary theory from the domain of speculation 
into the realms of scientific hypotheses has met with disaster. It is 
admitted by scientists that the “method” of evolution is unknown. 
This destroys evolution as a scientific hypothesis, since it is, in its 
very essence, a quest for a “method” or origins and nothing else. 

In the speeches made at Dayton, and in the newspaper discussion 
which followed, there was again in evidence an almost pathetic 
reliance of the evolutionist upon the data supplied by geology, — data 
supplied by geology only after they had been transferred to its account 
through a very deft sleight-of-hand by the evolutionists themselves. 
The fallacy crops out in such statements as these (Chas. C. Ziegler, 
in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch of September 6): “To my mind the 
indirect or corroborative evidences of evolution are just as strong as 
the direct. The succession of living forms, as shown by their fossils 
in the geological strata, was from the simple to the complex, from 
the lower to the higher.” Or, quoting from Rev. Hunt: “There, in 
the form of fossils, lying in these various strata of rock, from the 
earliest up to the latest layers, is plainly visible to the human eye 
the whole course of the growth and unfolding of plant, insect, 
reptile, and animal life of the earth. Im the long series of rock 
deposits one cannot help but note the gradually ascending scale of 
life, running through uncounted millions of years. In these later 
deposits are forms of manlike ceatures that suggest very significantly 
that man himself is a product of the whole process.” 

Now, as was pointed out first in our Hvolution: An Investigation 
and a Criticism, this entire argument from geology is based upon 
a tremendous “circle in reasoning.” Prof. Geo. M. Price has recently 


INTRODUCTION. ii! 


expressed it thus: “We have awakened to the idea that this entire 
classification is merely the geological phase of the theory of evolu- 
tion, and that this geological series is in reality the last and most 
important stronghold of the whole theory of evolution. Not only so, 
but a multitude of discoveries are now known which prove conclu- 
sively that the rocks and fossils placed at the bottom of this series are 
not necessarily older than the others.” The argument is more fully 
dealt with on pages 59—61 of the text just quoted. The theory of 
overthrusts, which is made to account for strata that occur in the 
reverse of the order demanded by evolution, receives proper attention 
in Professor Price’s New Geology, p. 277 ff. 

Naturally, one of the first scientists to be called to Dayton by 
the defense lawyers was Prof. Edwin G. Conklin, the Princeton 
biologist. While not permitted to testify, eager interviewers obtained 
his opinion. He is quoted as saying: “It is plain that the causes 
are complex, and they have not yet been fully discovered. It is even 
probable that some of the proposed causes are erroneous and will 
have to be abandoned. But the same may be said with regard to 
the causes of gravitation, light, electricity, chemical affinity, life, or 
any other natural phenomenon.” And again: “Lowly origin is not 
incompatible with ultimate greatness, as none knows better than the 
countrymen of Washington, Franklin, Lincoln, and Grant. All the 
greatest leaders of men were once babies and germ cells, and yet 
this humble origin does not preclude a glorious destiny. It is odd 
to see our Great Commoner objecting so strenuously to this demo- 
cratic doctrine.” 

A theory must be in dreadful straits when its spokesmen are 
compelled to descend to such levels. Professor Conklin cannot be 
unaware of the fact that the common people will understand him to 
say that evolution is as clearly understood in its laws as we under- 
stand the laws of physics and chemistry, and that there is something 
analogous between evolution and the development of “grown men 
from babies and germ cells.” It is when we note the intricate sword- 
dances which the masters of evolution must perform in order to 
razzle-dazzle the public into trustful security, that we experience 
a feeling like nausea at the entire subject. By comparison it is 
refreshing to read the straightforward statement of Professor Mil- 
liken, of Chicago, who brought consternation to the Darrow crowd 
when he uttered his “Not proven!” Robert A. Milliken is winner of 
a Noble prize in physics. Addressing the American Chemical Society 
August 6 at Los Angeles, he said: “The pathetic thing is that we 
have scientists who are trying to prove evolution, which no scientist 
ever can prove.” 


12 INTRODUCTION. 


Prof. William Emerson Ritter, of the University of California, 
is one of the outstanding scientists in the world. We take the word 
of scientists for this. Very recently he said: “If one scans a bit 
thoughtfully the landscape of human life for the last few decades, 
he can hardly fail to see signs that the whole battleground of evolu- 
tion will have to be fought over again, this time not so much between 
scientists and theologians as among scientists themselves.” 


The Antichristian Bias. 


Nor has the antichristian bias, to which the evolutionary 
hypothesis owes its vogue, failed to assert itself at Dayton and in 
the Dayton aftermath. Dr. Osborn has gone on record with the 
statement that since Darwin’s time scientists have “been eager to 
discover some natural cause of evolution and to abandon the idea 
of supernatural intervention in the order of nature.” Plain enough, 
ig it not? 

According to an article in Asia (Vol. 24, No. 6) Professor Osborn 
means by soul “the spiritual, intellectual, and moral reaction to 
environment and to daily experience. When we speak of ‘the soul of 
a people,’ ‘the soul of Japan,’ ‘the soul of China,’ ‘the soul of France,’ 
we refer to something created, not in an instant, but in eons of time. 
This racial soul is the product of thousands of years of past expe- 
rience,” ete. So the soul is an abstraction only, an attitude, not an 
essence, destined for immortality. A bleak naturalism, not sur- 
prising in a scholar of Thomas Huxley. 

Professor Conklin’s religious views find expression in the inter- 
view already quoted, thus: “The religion of evolution is nothing new, 
but is the old religion of the world’s greatest leaders and teachers; 
the religion of Confucius and Plato and Moses, and especially of 
Christ, which strives to develop a better and nobler human race and 
establish the kingdom of God on the earth.” This is not so much the 
antichristian as, even upon superficial analysis, the irreligious atti- 
tude, which simply rules out the supernatural. Noble words, they 
cannot cover up the hideousness of a theory which places an animal 
at the beginning of human history. From this theory the ordinary 
mind will draw the conclusion voiced in a newspaper letter by an 
Illinoisan: “One thing is certain, if our ancestors were beasts, I care 
not how far back you go, we, too, are beasts. And if beasts, what 
right have we to hope for a future estate beyond the grave any more 
than any other beast?’ This is the plain English of the philosophical 
statements of Osborn regarding the soul and of that naturalism which 
Conklin is able to utter with such spiritual accents. 





INTRODUCTION. 13 


Roman Rationalism. 


The comparative liberality which the Roman Catholic Church 
accords to its priests and people in this same matter has again been 
evident in the discussion which has followed the Scopes trial. After 
quoting from Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, Professor Windle of 
the University of Toronto said: “The matter may be summed up by 
saying that if and when the state of science is in such a position as 
to establish the fact of evolution either on limited or unlimited lines, 
there most surely will be nothing in any attitude so far taken up by 
the Church to render acceptance of the view impossible or even 
difficult. Nay, more; it will be found that it has been accepted in 
advance as a perfectly possible— many would say highly probable — 
method of creation.” 

McCann’s God — or Gorilla takes the middle-of-the-road attitude | 
regarding organic evolution in general while denying most strenuously 
the pertinence of the so-called proof from fossil human remains. 
Mr. McCann, who is a Roman Catholic, says: “I have never failed 
to admit that God might have worked, had He seen fit, by some 
evolutionary process in His creation. It is altogether possible that 
as far as our bodies are concerned, we have derived them from some 
preexisting form, which took its own body, in turn, from a still 
earlier form. All this is nothing to me, because I am still con- 
fronted by the phenomenon of the soul, which by its very nature, 
a simple spiritual substance, could not have been evolved from matter 
under any theory of evolution ever proposed.” 

On the other hand, Prof. Geo. B. O’Toole of St. Vincent Arch- 
abbey, Greensburg, Pa., in his more recent book T'he Case against 
Evolution, not only denies the validity of the evidence adduced for 
human evolution, but charges the evolutionists with destruction of 
religion and morals: “Had evolutionary enthusiasts adhered more 
strictly to the facts, had they proceeded in the spirit of scientific 
caution; had they shown, in fact, even so much as a common regard 
for the simple truth, the ‘progress of science’ would not have been 
achieved at the expense of morals and religion. As it is, this so-called 
progress has left behind a wake of destruction in the shape of under- 
mined convictions, blasted lives, crimes, misery, despair, and suicide. 
It has, in short, contributed largely to the present sinister and 
undeserved triumph of materialism, agnosticism, and pessimism, 
which John Talbot Smith has fittingly characterized as the three 
D’s of dirt, doubt, and despair. A little less sensationalism, a little 
more conscientiousness, a little more of that admirable quality, 
scientific caution, and the concord of faith and reason would have 


14 INTRODUCTION. 


become a truism instead of a problem. But such regrets are vain. 
The evil effects are here to stay, and nothing can undo the past.” 

Such conflicting views on a matter vitally touching religion are 
permitted within the Catholic Church. All that it prescribes to its 
teachers is the doctrine that the human soul is a divine creation. 
So much granted, its teachers may go the whole length with Darwin 
and Huxley. 

A Moribund Hypothesis. 


Meanwhile scientific research is going on serenely unconcerned, 
so far as it is scientific, about the Scopes trial and its implications. 
And wherever it penetrates below surface appearances, it finds diffi- 
culties mountain-high rising against the acceptance of the evolu- 
tionistic scheme of causes. It has been argued that certain mutations, 
or variations, such as Luther Burbank has produced, and the develop- 
ment of high-producing cattle, such as the cow that yields thirty 
thousand pounds of milk a year, show variation in the direction of 
progress; but the answer is obvious: All the artificial breeds, if left 
to themselves, would soon revert to the ancestral type. David Starr 
Jordan has quite recently said: “A species is a race that has run the 
gauntlet of the ages in the open and survived. None of the new 
species created in the laboratory would last five years in the open. 
A greenhouse variation is easily secured. It is like calling a military 
school cadet a soldier. A soldier is one who has stood.” This, of 
course we have all known a long time. But the earth begins to rock 
under our feet when we read the following sweeping admission of 
Prof. M. F. Guyer: “Most biologists no longer believe that changes 
in form are brought about as a result of external conditions, that is, 
by the action of outside influences upon the parent, which after 
a long period begin to be transmitted to offspring. Biologists believe 
changes are first impressed upon the germ plasm and that these 
changes are transmitted to offspring, which then begin to differ from 
the parent. How these changes are induced in the germ plasm is 
a problem we are trying to solve.” This throws back the entire 
discussion to where it was before Darwin wrote his famous treatise. 

Chas. D. Stewart writes entertainingly in the July Atlantic 
Monthly on the mystery of the honey-bee and comes down to cases 
in his description of the wonderfully complicated knee-joints of 
the bee. Referring to the idea of natural selection, which gives an 
animal a “spontaneous” tendency to vary in all sorts of aimless and 
undirected ways and then builds up from some primitive or one- 
celled form by a long series of coincidences, Mr. Stewart says: “The 
human mind, starting out to give this theory definite application, is 
immediately brought to a halt. A man will ask questions, and so he 


INTRODUCTION. 15 


wants to know whether the bee’s antenna existed first and needed 
a cleaner for long periods of time, or whether the cleaner happened 
first and was in need of something to clean. As to the gradual 
evolution of tools, here is a bothersome thought: Some tools are of 
such a nature that they are not of use till they are complete. 
A wheelbarrow without a wheel, a pipe-wrench without a jaw, would 
be an entirely unevolved piece of evolution. The antenna-cleaner 
seems to belong to this class of tools. One cannot imagine its pro- 
gressive stages and see how any one of the imaginary states of 
incompletion would give its possessor any advantage over other 
insects in the struggle for existence.” 


Evolution and Scripture. 


As for the major and all-essential question: Can evolution and 
the Scripture be harmonized? David S. Clark says in a recent 
number of the Princeton Theological Review: “As far as material- 
istic or naturalistic evolution is concerned, the answer must be 
a decided no. In behalf of theistic evolution the attempt has fre- 
quently been made, but it cannot be said with entire success. It must 
not be assumed, however, that, even if such harmony could be estab- 
lished, this would prove evolution to be true. The proof of evolution 
must rest on positive grounds. It is not a mere choice between 
a naturalistic uniformitarianism and a supernaturalistic uniformi- 
tarianism, but whether even the latter is true. As long as evolution 
defines itself as ‘development,’ ‘history,’ or ‘orderly change,’ — as long 
as evolution confines itself to the limits of species, one need hardly 
enter the lists. But when evolution transgresses these limits and 
affirms the transmutation of species, deriving all sentient being, the 
race of man, body and soul included, from a primordial germ, then 
discussion arises and opposition ensues. Transmutation is of the 
essence of evolution — is really what evolution means. There may 
be room for difference of opinion as to the limits of species, some 
more, some less, inclusive, as the case may be; but that there are 
such limits the sterility of hybrids and the laws of Mendelism con- 
clusively show. The laws of nature show a very decided respect for 
the limits of species, and to this the first chapter of Genesis bears 
witness: ‘And God said: Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb 
yielding seed and the fruit-tree yielding fruit after its kind, whose 
seed is in itself.... And the earth brought forth grass and herb 
yielding seed after its kind, and the tree yielding fruit whose seed 
was in itself after its kind.” Gen.1,11.12. ‘And God created every 
living creature that moveth ... after its kind, and every winged 
fowl after its kind.’ V.21. ‘And God said: Let the earth bring forth 


16 INTRODUCTION. 


the living creature after its kind, cattle and creeping thing, and beast 
of the earth after its kind.... And God made the beast of the earth 
after its kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that 
ereepeth upon the earth after its kind.” Vv. 24.25. How careful the 
Scripture is to stress the words ‘after its kind’! These are statements 
for the Christian and the scientist to ponder. And there are many 
who hold that the physical law of the inviolability of species and 
these express statements of Scripture are cogent and conclusive evi- 
dence that transmutational evolution is in harmony neither with the 
Seriptures nor with the laws of nature.” 

Not only this, but it stands as a denial of every essential 
Christian belief. As a layman wrote to the Adelaide Register when 
the Dayton excitement was at its height: “Whenever the standard 
of Christianity is lowered, there is a marked increase of worldliness 
in the Church. There is no doubt that much of this is due to the 
conduct of the clergy, many of whom have imbibed the teachings of 
the higher critics and the evolutionists and have, in turn, passed on 
these pernicious doctrines to their congregations in place of the pure 
Gospel of Jesus Christ. The severest indictment that must be 
brought against the God-dishonoring theory of evolution is that it 
denies that there was a fall; therefore there is no need of the plan 
of redemption or of the Savior, the central figure of that plan to 
redeem and restore to original purity and sinlessness. While higher 
criticism denies the inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures, 
the virgin birth and deity of Jesus, and practically every other funda- 
mental doctrine of Christianity, their preaching has consequently 
lost converting power. The Spirit of God cannot work where the 
fundamentals of Christianity are denied.” 


And Finally: What of the Tennessee Law? 


And now, what will become of the Tennessee law ? 
The lawyers of Mr. Scopes have appealed their case, and very 
_ probably the Supreme Court of the United States will have to say 
the final word. ; 

Is the law in harmony with the American doctrine that the 
individual’s right to his particular belief shall remain inviolate? 

A Twin City paper comments: “It is this issue which makes 
the case one of transcendent importance, since, if such legislation 
should be held constitutional, there is no reason why legislatures 
and congresses should not, in effect, set up that very ‘establishment 
of religion,’ forbidden in the first Amendment to the Constitution 
of the United States. If the teaching of the evolutionary hypothesis 
can be forbidden, there is no limit to legislation along collateral 
lines. The religious liberty which the American people have enjoyed 


INTRODUCTION. 17 


for more than a hundred years would be destroyed, and we should 
have in free America such persecutions as have marked ascendancy 
of various religious sects since medieval times. Against so dire 
a peril it seems to us that every American, evolutionist or funda- 
mentalist, must earnestly contend.” 

Judge Raulston has given the Tennessee point of view as follows: 
“T cannot conceive how the teachers’ rights under this provision of 
the constitution would be violated by the act in issue. There is no 
law in the State of Tennessee that undertakes to compel this defen- 
dant, or any other citizen, to accept employment in the public schools. 
The relation between the teacher and his employer are purely con- 
tractual, and if his conscience constrains him to teach the evolution 
theory, he can find opportunity elsewhere.” 

Prof. J. G. Halland, formerly State Superintendent of the North 
Dakota public schools, has voiced his agreement with this line of 
thought as follows: “The evolutionist has a hypothesis, or creed, 
that explains to his satisfaction the origin and nature of things, of 
man and of mind and matter. This is his religion. With him it 
takes the place of Genesis and all other theories of creation, or 
cosmogonies. To this religion he is entitled. It is his constitutional 
privilege. If, however, in the enjoyment of this privilege, he becomes 
enthusiastic and feels a great urge or desire to spread his religious 
belief, it is also his privilege to build a lecture-hall or climb a soap- 
box, where he doesn’t interfere with traffic, and to invite his neighbors 
to listen to his explanation of his creeds, theories, ete.; but he must 
not expect the taxpayers of any American community to build school- 
rooms, compel the children to attend, and then turn him loose on 
them to teach his particular brand of religion, even if he attempts 
to disguise the nature of his efforts by calling it science.” 

Much speculation is even now rife regarding the application of 
the Oregon decision to the present case. Certain broad principles 
have been laid down by the court which will be invoked by the 
attorneys of both sides in arguing the right to teach the doctrine 
of evolution. 

The Supreme Court says significantly that “no question is raised 
concerning the power of the state reasonably to regulate all schools, 
to inspect, supervise, and examine them, their teachers and pupils.” 

From this the defenders of the Tennessee law are going to 
argue that the court itself agrees that such a power is vested in the 
States. The opponents of the statute, on the other hand, will derive 
inspiration from other parts of the same decision, which says the 
child is not the creature of the State, but can be educated at the 
direction of the parent in whatever schools are chosen. 


Essays on Evolution. 2 


18 INTRODUCTION. 


In the Tennessee case the legislature simply prescribes what 
shall or shall not be taught in the public schools, whereas in Oregon 
the legislature undertook to compel all children to attend one kind 
of school, namely, the public schools. William Jennings Bryan 
insisted that parents who want their children taught evolution may 
send them to private schools which have this branch of study in 
their curriculum. The Oregon case, however, lays down some prin- 
ciples as to the right of the parent with respect to education generally, 
and the opponents of the Tennessee law are planning to argue that, 
since the people are taxed to support the public schools, such doc- 
trines shall be taught as are not inimical merely to the public 
welfare. They will say that any regulation which touches the broad 
ground of religion is an interference by the State in the right of 
religious worship, whether the interference is in the form of a regula- 
tion requiring the teaching of the Bible or the prohibition of any 
particular religious doctrine. 

The Tennessee case will, therefore, hinge largely on technical 
rights such as were raised in the Oregon case and not on the merits 
of the doctrine of evolution, whether it is harmful to the education 
of the young if taught or suppressed. 





1. The Conflict. 


“When this talk-fest and publicity stunt,” the Dayton, Tenn., 
evolution trial, “is over, the Bible will still live as the inspired Word 
of God, the scientific search for undiscovered truth will continue. 
And no one need be alarmed that any truth discovered by man, the 
creature, can overturn or undo that which is made manifest by 
his Creator.” 

Christians everywhere have realized the truth of this statement 
by John E. Edgerton, president of the National Association of 
Manufacturers. 

The lawyers for the defense of man’s descent from the monkey * 
started out to prove two things: 1) That all who are fighting evo- 
lution are fighting science, and 2) that evolution is not in conflict 
with religion. Those who followed the case had the definite impres- 
sion that the defense lawyers were filled with venom against Biblical 
Christianity and left no stone unturned to introduce evidence which 
would unsettle popular faith in the Bible. But if we ever thought 
we had definite impressions of what evolution is or how it works, we 
surely have lost them if we followed the reports of the trial. Never 
has the hollowness of evolutionistic claims become so apparent as 
in the expressions of scientists who sought a hearing at the Scopes 
trial in Dayton, Tenn. 


A House Built on Quicksand. 


Every American of newspaper reading age should at this time 
know that the structure of evolution is built on quicksand. Not on 
fact, not on observation supported by experiment, but on mere 
hypothesis, all the arguments which evolution brings against the 
Bible have been erected. Maynard M. Metcalf of Johns Hopkins 
says through an interviewer: — 

“The fact of evolution is perfectly clear. The sequence of 
organism on the earth is a fact, and that fact is evolution. It is 
simply one of those things which are too obvious to be denied. On 
the other hand, it is by no means clear how it occurred, and there 


* Sometimes it is flatly and even indignantly denied that Darwin 
held to the monkey origin of man. But Darwin’s own words ought to be 
convincing. I quote directly from his Descent of Man (second edition, 
chap. VI, pp. 220.221): “The Simiadae then branched off into two great 
stems, the New World and Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at 
a remote period of time, Man, the wonder and glory of the universe, pro- 
ceeded.” If that is not first-hand testimony, it would be hard to find any. 


20 THE CONFLICT. 


are various conflicting theories as to how and why it occurred, most 
of them seeming to be supported by certain evidences. 

“Tt is extremely doubtful if there will ever be as much certainty 
about any one theory of evolution as there is about the fact of 
evolution. This is true about every great fact or basic set of facts 
in the scientific world.” 

This is a plain attempt to throw sand into people’s eyes. The 
word “fact” as used among men means “proved instance,” or it 
means nothing. Yet Dr. Metcalf knows well enough that there is 
not a single proved instance of evolution in all the records of 
science. To rail at Mr. Bryan and all those who hold that evolution 
is unproved as if they were opponents of science is the last resort of 
those who now, after nearly a century of evolutionistic biology, must 
admit themselves beaten. 

A theory which is supported by fact does not require evasion, 
trickery, and misrepresentation of the opponent. In a recent book 
a photograph was shown which brought out a remarkable resemblance 
between the gorilla’s foot and the human. The resemblance to the 
human foot is so true as to be startling. If it were true, then 
a brute was found that in physical structure nearly resembled man. 
Perhaps it was the Missing Link! Naturally the book and the 
illustration made a stir in the scientific world. 

Enters here Sir E. Ray Lankester, who examines the photos, then 
the cast from which they were made, and comes to the deliberate 
conclusion that the whole thing is a fake. Of the photograph he 
says: “It is entirely misleading, since it suggests a resemblance 
between the great toe of the gorilla and that of man, which does not 
exist.” Then he goes on: “I wish to record my opinion that the 
actual gorilla’s foot from which the cast was taken was distorted by 
post-mortem changes and by pressure tending to bring the big toe 
alongside of, and parallel with, the other toes as in man, instead of 
allowing it to diverge widely from them as it does when not arti- 
ficially constrained.” . 

Indeed, the English scientist does not hesitate to charge the 
author with having made a photograph of a cast “deceptively illu- 
minated and made to present a false resemblance to the foot of man.” 
And to prove it, he illustrated his reply with other photographs of 
the same cast made by reputable photographers. One cannot omit 
mentioning in this connection the fact that Ernst Haeckel, the 
greatest disciple of Darwin, has conclusively been proved a forger 
of photographs representing human embryos as closely resembling 
those of various animals. These forgeries are known to every 
naturalist and have been demonstrated by the foremost scientists 


THE CONFLICT. ral 


of Germany. A theory which is true does not need such falsehoods 
to support it. 

Nor does it require a scientific mind to recognize the futility 
of evolution as an explanation of the universe. Only last year 
a lecturer in Harvard University, speaking in the Lowell Institute, 
explained the rattlers of the rattlesnake as due to fear of the buffalo. 
The buffaloes so often stepped on the snakes which would stray into 
their feeding-grounds that the party of the second part decided to 
defend itself by acquiring a set of rattlers. So they grew some 
rattlers on the tips of their tails, and ever after the buffaloes would 
jump six feet sideways when they heard the r-r-r. This saved the 
rattlesnake. Lest my readers think that I am slandering modern 
science, let me quote from the lecture just referred to: “These 
ponderous animals, traveling over the plains, must have been dis- 
tinetly dangerous to snakes living in the open, and while a bite, even 
after the snake had been mortally wounded by the feeding buffalo’s 
hoofs, would be distinctly unpleasant to the buffalo, still death would 
probably but rarely ensue. Nevertheless, it would surely cause great 
pain, and the buffalo would gladly keep out of the snake’s way if 
warned, and this warning the rattle gave.” It seems to me that any 
normal American big enough to look over a four-foot wall can see 
that this is perfectly ridiculous. In order not to be obliged to bite 
the buffalo with its poison fangs, a snake develops a set of rattlers 
at the other end! 

I wish some of the scientific talent which gathered at Dayton 
would take the time to read an article in the July Atlantic Monthly, 
entitled “The Bee’s Knees,” by Charles D. Stewart, who seems to 
follow in the steps of the great scientist Henri Fabre, who denied 
Darwin’s theory. Referring to several facts about bees, especially 
neuters, he says: “Right here is where Darwin’s theory of evolution 
went on the rocks. To every theory of evolution, heredity, the ability 
to transmit evolved traits to offspring, is absolutely necessary. 
Darwin acknowledged the difficulty found in bee life.” 

The difficulty in the case of the bees consists in this, that the 
workers are endowed with instincts (honey-gathering, etc.), which 
they cannot have inherited because these instincts are possessed by 
neither the mother (queen-bee) nor the father (the drone). Since 
evolution absolutely depends upon heredity, it is disproved by the 
case of the bee. Indeed, although there are two or three millions 
of animal species on earth, it has, according to Dr. N. S. Shaler, 
Professor of Geology in Harvard, not yet been proved that a single 
species has been established solely or even mainly by the operation 
of natural selection. Even Darwin himself said: “We cannot prove 
that a single species has changed.” (Life and Letters, Vol. III, p. 25.) 


99 THE CONFLICT. 


One of the most recent authoritative publications by a German 
anthropologist urges that “the apes are to be regarded as degenerate 
branches of the prehuman stock.” This means in a word that “man 
is not descended from the ape, but the ape from the man.” 

As if to mock the efforts of the Dayton aggregation of scientists, 
science discovered just at that time on a canyon wall of Arizona 
the picture of a dinosaur, drawn by a prehistoric hand. If man 
lived in the age of dinosaurs, he lived ten million years (according 
to the theory) before there ever were apes! 


Evolution Atheistic. 


Evolution means that everything has come into being by forces 
that dwell in matter. Its first assumption is that both time and 
matter are endless, eternal, uncreated. If you bring God into the 
equation, you can cancel Darwin. One or the other gives us 
a system. Each makes the other superfluous. A god that does not 
create, but is himself bound by the laws of nature, is not God. 
And still evolutionists try to overcome the scruples of Christians 
and to stem the tide of resentment which is sweeping over the 
nation by telling us that there is no conflict between evolution and 
religion. 

Another dishonest trick is involved in this very statement. 
Reading it, every one supposes that the Christian religion is meant. 
What evolutionists really have in mind is the belief in the super- 
natural, in a higher being or power. This may be conceded if you 
do not take power in the sense of person. The doctrine that God 
is a Being with the personal characteristics of Wisdom, Love, Power 
finds no place in the genuine evolutionistic scheme. 

In the Outlook for July 12, 1916, the editor, Dr. Lyman Abbott, 
quoted with approval the following from a recent book by John 
Burroughs: “The creative energy shows itself to be very human, 
very fallible, often vacillating and short-sighted. God has gone on 
with His work very much as man goes on with his — blundering, 
experimenting, but doing the best He could.” What blasphemy! 
A “vacillating,” “very fallible,” indeed, “very human” Oreator, 
a “blundering, experimenting” god, who “does the best he can”! 
No amount of fine phrases can gloze over the atheism of such 
doctrine as this. 

Evolution destroys the doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible 
by denying its inerrancy and its infallible and final authority. Over 
and over again in the early verses of Genesis we are told that God 
created the various species to reproduce “after their kind.” But 
evolution says that this is not true and asserts that the various 


THE CONFLICT. AS 


species have continuously evolved from one to another all the way 
to man. 

Evolution destroys the doctrine of the fall of man and its result, 
total depravity. The Word of God says that man has gone down 
from a condition of purity and innocence into a condition of such 
sinful enmity against God that he is not only not subject to the Law 
of God, but is utterly incapable of bringing himself into subjection 
to it. And the experience of every Christian gives sorrowful, but 
certain evidence of that fact. 

Now hear what the evolutionists say: — 

“Theology has much to say about original sin. This original 
sin is neither more nor less than the brute inheritance which every 
man carries with him.” (John Fiske, The Destiny of Man, p. 103.) 

“Science has shown us that what is popularly called ‘original 
sin’ . . . consists of man’s inheritance from his brute ancestry.” 
(Dr. H. D. A. Major at Oxford Conference of Modern Churchmen.) 

According to the evolutionary philosophy, sin cannot be “ex- 
ceeding sinful,” for it is either inherent in the process of evolution 
or, at worst, but an unfortunate slip in the working out of that 
process, if, indeed, it is not even a mark of budding virtue. And 
if this is so, man is in no way responsible for his sin. Punishment 
for sin is therefore absolutely out of the question. Sir J. William 
Dawson, speaking of the evolutionary doctrines as speculations, 
says: “They are accepted as affording a welcome deliverance from 
all scruples of conscience and fears of a hereafter.” 

Man’s natural heart is strongly predisposed to the acceptance 
of any doctrine, contrary to that of the Bible, whereby he may 
account for the conspicuous fact of his moral condition, his hatred 
of his fellows, his readiness to do them injury, even to the shedding 
of blood, in order to gain some advantage for himself, his idolatries, 
his blasphemies, his licentiousness, his wars and strifes, his insanities 
and suicides, his thefts, his lies, his frauds, his debaucheries, and so 
on to the end of the dark chapter. 

From this it is easy to perceive how it is that evolution as 
a religious doctrine, though without one fact to support it, finds such 
numerous adherents and such ardent defenders. What commends it 
to the unrepentant and unregenerate heart is that it offers an 
explanation of man’s origin and of his moral condition which not 
only accords with his good opinion of himself, but which quiets his 
conscience as to the whole question of sin and even makes his fears 
of the Judgment to come a subject of contempt and ridicule. For 
evolution presents a man to his own admiring gaze, not as a perishing 
creature, lost and undone, but as a conquering hero, not as a fallen 
being, but just the reverse, a being in process of development from 


94 THE CONFLICT. 


a lowly origin and ever advancing to as yet unimaginable heights of 
perfection and glory. 

The late Mr. W. J. Bryan’s words at Dayton, Tenn., will appeal 
to every Christian: — 

“The evolutionary hypothesis robs man’s conscience of its com- 
pelling force. What feeling of duty can man have or what sense 
of responsibility to God if it must be strained through the blood of 
all the animal life below man? Religion, on the contrary, inspires 
to action. Christianity is not a lazy man’s job. It represents the 
highest ideal known. 

“We fear no scientific truth. What we object to is having these 
scientists and professors ask us to put somebody’s guess ahead of 
the Word of God. And we object to their telling us that not only 
their ancestors, but ours, were monkeys and insisting that we adopt 
a philosophy that looks down, not up. 

“Some of these scientists of America are dishonest scoundrels, 
afraid to tell their beliefs, burrowing in the ground and stealing 
away the faith of your children. But we’ve got them now where 
they’ve got to come up and fight.” 

The reaction of Christian scholars against the’bold assertions 
of evolutionists is being reckoned with. At one great Eastern univer- 
sity, so we are informed on best authority, the professors of biology 
are cautioning their students against making too free use of the 
very term “evolution” when called into teaching positions. The term 
now being passed out as substitute is “adaptation.” Plants and 
animals in the course of time have “adapted themselves” to soil, 
climate, and environment generally. In the very latest high school 
texts on biology the term “evolution” is studiously avoided, being 
introduced only in the closing chapters of the text-books. It is all 
“adaptation” —in order to avoid the opposition which is apt to be 
raised in the classroom against “evolve,” “evolution.” Arguments 
between pupils and teachers are highly distasteful, and school boards 
do not like to receive protests from parents. While the teachings of 
evolution are thus being instilled in a more insidious form, we have 
in this concession to public sentiment a clear indication that evolu- 
tionists have been forced to reckon with a Christian scholarship 
which not only from the religious, but also from the scientific stand- 
point has been waging an aggressive fight against science falsely 
so called. 

After all, common sense does not so readily fall in with the view 
that man is essentially an animal. Railroads cannot be run on 
nebular hypotheses, but must be governed by common sense, other- 
wise neither freight nor passengers would be safe. I should hesitate 
to entrust myself to the trains of any system if I knew that the 


THE CONFLICT. 95 


construction engineers had acted on wild guesses, like the high 
school teachers of zoology when they teach man’s descent from the 
ape. Recently this matter was tested out, with fine credit to the 
Santa Fe. The story is worth repeating. 

It begins somewhat weirdly with the enrolment, at a Kansas 
college, of a boy who, as was later discovered, had entered merely 
in order to “smouch” the football signals and with this precious 
information return to his own college, a rival institution. At any 
rate, this was the construction placed on the presence of the man 
from the other college, and the punishment measured out to him 
by the students was according to the most refined forms of scholastic 
torture. When the worst was over, they kept him in a cage a few 
days and fed him through the bars. Then they took him on a truck 
to the Santa Fe depot, crated as he was, and demanded that the 
agent accept him as freight, to be taken to the other college town. 
The agent refused pointblank. He said, “That is no animal,’ and 
so they had to knock out a few bars, and the young man traveled 
home as a man and not as an animal. 

Godless science makes of man an animal. Revelation says that 
he was made as the son of God. Luke 3,38. And to that agrees 
sound common sense, business sense, railroad sense, government 
sense; and we cannot conceive that the day will ever come when 
government will look upon people as a higher type of brute, or when 
railroads will ship men like cattle. He that regards man as an 
animal is an enemy of human society, though he speak with a soft 
voice, and is a fool, though he wear thick glasses. 

Evolutionistic propaganda is now reaching out for childhood. 
Chiefly through the printed page, but also by means of a dechristian- 
ized pulpit, the evolutionary hypothesis is set forth to the “man in 
the street” and even to the child in school as the result of historical 
and scientific research, to contradict which would classify one as 
a barbarian. Ab the Cave Man was, I believe, the first of the texts 
for collateral reading by which the grade scholars were introduced 
to their ancestor as pictured by the evolutionist. That was some 
twenty. years ago. We now have Hendrik Van Loon’s two books, 
Ancient Man and The Story of Mankind, which drop the mask of 
the story-teller still maintained in Ab the Cave Man and purport to 
relate the history of mankind from the earliest times to the present 
age. According to Van Loon it took our ancestors “almost a million 
years” to learn how to walk on hind legs. The author takes pains at 
every turn to disparage Christianity. Yet there are schools which 
require their scholars to read this alleged history. Fancy a child 
having learned the Bible story of the creation of man in the image 
of God and then being invited to accept Mr. Van Loon’s picture of 


26 EVOLUTION AND REVELATION. 


primitive man: “Quite small, his entire body covered with hair, 
hands like those of a monkey, forehead low, eating his food raw, 
jabbering like an animal in the zoo.” The wickedness of the im- 
posture can be fully realized only when it is considered on what 
shreds of evidence evolutionists construct this picture of the ape- 
man —a hatful of bones, some kept by their finders under lock and 
key, their inspection denied even to scientists (Du Bois and the 
Trinil bones). 

Another set of books of the same general character is the 
“Tndustrial and Social History Series,” four small volumes published 
by Rand McNally. The titles are: The Tree Dwellers, The Early 
Cave Men, The Later Cave Men, and The Early Sea People. While 
these books do not so bitterly attack Christianity as do the works 
of Van Loon, they are even more vicious, since the pretense of 
history is more consistently carried through. Moreover, they are 
intended for the little ones, to be read at mother’s knee or in the 
earlier grades, while Van Loon wrote for the upper grammar school 
classes. 

Just now H. G. Wells’ Outlines of History is the rage. Wells is 
a British author who wrote some remarkable novels fifteen and 
twenty years ago. Since that time he has joined Bernard Shaw and 
George Moore as one of the three most bitter enemies of Christianity 
living in England to-day. He made his Outlines of History 
a vehicle for the antichristian world-view of evolutionary philosophy. 

There is no possibility of compromise. Between these two — 
the teachings of the Bible and the speculations of the evolutionist — 
there is an impassable gulf fixed, which no compromise of “theistic 
evolution” is able to bridge. 


2. Evolution and Revelation. 


The evolutionists are coming back at us. A class in high school 
was reading Emerson’s Hssays, and the teacher of English took 
occasion to sound her pupils out on the question of evolution. 
A Lutheran girl défended the Scriptural doctrine of Creation. Soon 
after, the teacher gave her some home reading, which proved to be 
a presentation of the evolutionary theory as applied to literature. 

The Lutheran girl, not to be outdone in conferring favors, 
offered her teacher the December (1923) number of the Walther 
League Messenger. 

When the paper was returned to the high school student, she 
found a note pinned to the article from which I copy the following :— 


EVOLUTION AND REVELATION. oT 


“So far as the Bible is concerned, the theory of evolution and 
the Bible do not contradict each other. At one time, people who did 
not attempt to get to the bottom of things and who were thoughtless, 
or who were incapable of scientific or clear thinking’ on a subject, 
jumped to the conclusion that they were contradictory, but since that 
time many of the world’s most devout and great men have accepted 
without question the theory of evolution, and many — perhaps most 
scientific researchers — have been thoroughly in acceptance of the 
religious spirit of the Bible. In fact, the further into the study of 
the laws of the universe one goes, the more profound is one’s feeling 
of reverence for the Great Spirit responsible for the establishment 
of such a system. Man’s mind inevitably searches to reduce things 
to order—to a system. If man is ‘created in the image of God’ 
(and it is the spirit that matters, the soul, the mind), shall we 
attribute less than a reasonable system of order to His universe?” 
All of which is not argument, but assertion. Only on one point 
does the writer try to adduce proof: “Instinct is another indication 
of evolution. Instinct is the stored-up wisdom of countless genera- 
tions of fore-bears in learning to survive. Other species have per- 
sisted in this process.” 

As for developing instincts, more will be said in our chapter 
on “The Barrier of Instinct.” But what about the relation of 
evolution to religion? Is it true that only ignorance and prejudice 
keep us from harmonizing the two? 

Now, it can easily be shown that the Bible and evolution are in 
conflict at least on ten essential points: — 


1. The Bible teaches that God is a factor in human life; 
evolution eliminates Him. 

2. According to the Bible, man was created. Observe that of the 
animals it is said that the sea brought them forth, or the land 
brought them forth, each as a species or kind; while man was not 
created “after his kind,” as a species of animal, nor was he brought 
forth out of the earth like the animals, but God said: “Let Us 
make —!” Evolution declares all this to be myth or poetry and 
says man has developed by a long process from lower forms of life. 

3. The Bible teaching concerning the creation of the first woman 
is cast aside as a fable by every evolutionist. 

4. The Bible teaches that God spoke to man; evolution teaches 
that there is no direct communication or revelation from God. 

5. The Bible teaches that God has performed miracles; evolution 
rejects all miracles. 

6. The Bible teaches that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary; 
evolution says that Jesus was born like all other men. 


28 EVOLUTION AND REVELATION, 


7. The Bible teaches that the soul is immortal; evolution teaches 
that men perish like the beasts. 

8. Both Mr. W. J. Bryan, who was a Christian, and the Unitarian, 
Rey. Frank S. 0. Wicks, of Indianapolis, who is an infidel, agree that 
so long as the Bible teaches the fall of man, evolution will be the 
deadly enemy of Christianity. 

9. The Bible says that man was made in God’s image, with 
a holy and righteous moral nature; evolution says that morals have 
developed from animal instinct. 

10. The Bible teaches that man is responsible to his Creator; 
evolution teaches that there is no universal moral law binding on 
conscience and hence no moral responsibility. 

By far the greater number of evolutionists are agnostics. An 
agnostic is a person who answers all questions regarding God and 
religion with “we don’t know.” Darwin was an agnostic. Many 
are atheists. Spencer, Huxley, and Haeckel were atheists. An 
atheist takes the position that the existence of God is not only not 
proved, but that it is disproved by science. Their attitude is that 
of the bug pictured by the cartoonist Paul Bransom in the Minne- 
apolis Tribune. This bug is just issuing from the horn of a cornet 
and remarks to a fellow-bug: “I have been all through, and I couldn’t 
find any music!” 

How our high school teacher in the face of all this can say that 
only prejudice and ignorance keep us from harmonizing evolutionary 
science and the Bible, is hard to understand. The explanation prob- 
ably is that she is ignorant of the principles of evolutionary science, 
or of Bible doctrine, or of both. Certainly, if God did not create 
Adam in His own image, then there could have been no fall of man. 
And if man has not fallen into sin from a state of holiness, then 
there is no restoration of the divine image, no redemption, no sal- 
vation. Prof. Wm. H. Wood of Dartmouth College has written 
a book printed by the Macmillan Company in 1922 on The Religion 
of Science. Professor Wood himself is not an orthodox believer, 
but his entire book is written in order to prove that the religion of 
evolution is something radically different from the religion of the 
Bible. And let us not fail to note that those who accept the evolu- 
tionistic religion are forced to accept also its morality, the teaching 
of evolution regarding right and wrong. 

In 1907 the Century Magazine contained an article defending 
the proposition that the Ten Commandments have been evolved 
rather than given by revelation to Moses. The author tries to show 
that even the animals are governed by the principle of the Moral 
Law. Honest scientists, like Alfred Russell Wallace, Agassiz, and 
Dana, to mention only these, admit that there is absolutely nothing 


EVOLUTION AND REVELATION. 29 


corresponding to a moral sense among the animals. As Professor 
Wood says, there is nothing in the animal corresponding to the 
sentiment: “How can I do this great wickedness and sin against 
God?” But since the evolutionist denies that God reveals Himself 
and hence declares the giving of the Ten Commandments to be 
a fable, like the creation story, it is clear that he cannot accept the 











metiiha\e f 
riety toy) Y 





fA0)-BRaKSo% » 


Just Like the Atheistic Bug. 


Paul Bransom, in the Minneapolis Tribune, makes 
the emerging bug say: “I’ve been all through, and 
I couldn’t find any music,” a striking parallel to the 
attitude of unbelieving scientists toward the universe. 


idea of an absolute Moral Law, that is to say, a Moral Law binding 
on the conscience of all men. If conscience tells man that this is 
wrong or that is right, the evolutionist says that this is only the 
result of custom and the outgrowth of certain instincts. “Sin and 
crime are largely physical brain defects.” 

Remember that according to evolution, man is an animal. As 
Dr. Lyman Abbott said: “Man is an animal; concerning this there 


80 EVOLUTION AND REVELATION. 


ean be no doubt.” And John Fiske: “Theology has much to say 
about original sin. Oirginal sin is nothing else but the animal nature 
which every man bears in himself.” Observe how in the following 
the evil passions of man are declared to be simply remnants of our 
former animal existence: “As he stands before us in all his primi- 
tive shagginess, grasping his heavy wooden spear in the moonlight, 
he thrills us. This is our ancestor; this is the creature from which 
we evolved; this thing is bone of our bone, flesh of our flesh. We 
are stirred by his passions, urged on by his nameless instincts. Forty 
thousand years separate him from still lower animals. He stands 
close to us — this cunning, fighting, hunting, ferocious Neanderthal 
man.” (Quotation from Professor Knight describing the cave-man.) 

Sin, then, is held to be nothing more serious than the remnants 
of the monkey in man. There is no devil seeking to lure men to 
destruction. 

Take God out of our thinking, and what remains of conscience? 
Disbelieve the existence of the soul, and what remains of a belief in 
the hereafter? If there is no life of rewards and penalties after 
death, then why walk the straight and narrow path,— thus reasons 
the brain infected with evolution. Indeed, being without a soul, man 
is really a mere thing. What he calls conscience is a mere movement 
of atoms in the brain. Do you suppose that those who hold such 
doctrines will feel a check on their greed, their passions, their 
instincts? What follows from this is that no man is responsible for 
his acts, and hence that no man is to be blamed or punished, even 
for crimes. ; 

Evolutionists do not shrink from this last ditch. Dr. A. W. 
McCann quotes Robert Blatchford: “Suppose a tramp has murdered 
a child on the highway, has robbed her of a few coppers, and has 
thrown her body into a ditch, do you mean to say that tramp could 
not help doing that? Do you mean he is not to blame— not to be 
punished? Yes, I mean to say all these things, and if all these things 
are not true, this book is not worth the paper it is written on.” 
Haeckel argues many times that man has an unquestionable right to 
end his sufferings by suicide ; that we are justified by the use of 
a dose of painless and rapid poison, morphia, for instance, in killing 
lunatics, sufferers from cancer and other diseases, cripples, deaf- 
mutes, ete. The same doctrine has been announced lately by 
Mrs. Atherton in a magazine article. Mrs. Atherton says that the 
time is coming when “all morons [half-wits] will be painlessly 
destroyed.” Get that, dear reader? How would you like to be one 
of a committee of six to select the half-wits in your town who are 
to be painlessly destroyed? They have even given this painless 


EVOLUTION AND REVELATION. 31 


destruction of sufferers from cancer, of the insane, etc., a Greek 
name, they call it “euthanasia,” which means “happy death.” 
That the theory of evolution is contradicted by true religion 
and morality these few examples should suffice to prove to the 
satisfaction of every one, even of the high school teacher whom we 


“Destroy These Painlessly.” 





Evolution Says: 
The Church has built an asylum to provide for these epileptic children. 





have quoted. And while the evolutionary theory is not proved, the 
Christian religion has proved itself true a thousand times. Deny 
that the Bible is inspired, that Jesus spoke the truth when He 
proclaimed Himself the Son of God, and you are face to face with 
a greater riddle than any riddle of science or religion; you must 
then account for the fact that a book written by victims of all 
kinds of delusions has been able to elevate mankind wherever it is 


39 EVOLUTION AND REVELATION. 


read, liberating the mind, freeing it from ignorance and superstition, 
and enabling man to conquer the powers of nature, to conquer even 
himself. How is it possible that the book which works such tre- 
mendous results should be written by deluded fools? And how is it 
possible that One who only believed Himself to be the Son of God 





The Only Power that Makes All Things New. 
The Chinese mother in the upper picture boasts that she drowned several 
of her daughters at birth. Contrast with this the opportunities which the 
Gospel opens to Chinese girls in mission-schools. A change of this kind 
cannot be explained or effected by evolutionism. 


and was crucified for His strange “delusion” should through His 
apostles in a few centuries destroy by His doctrine of love the very 
foundations of the Roman Empire and to-day, through His Gospel, 
rule every land in which life is worth living at all? Thus evolution 
raises greater problems than those of science itself and in this proves 
its own unscientific nature. 


EVOLUTION AND REVELATION, 33 


In his book Descent from the Monkey a German scholar, E. Loh- 
mann, cites a number of cases which prove the insufficient character 
of the evidence being used by evolutionists. Much has been made of 
the great age of certain trees in order to disprove even the longest 
of Biblical chronologies. A hundred years ago Alexander von Hum- 
boldt found a tree of the species Dracaena Draco on the island of 
Teneriffe which had a circumference of 15 meters. Von Humboldt 
estimated the age of the tree at ten thousand years. Another tree 
of the same species was found on this island in 1857. Its trunk 
measured 94 meters. This same tree was again measured in 1884. 
It developed that in 27 years this tree had already gained 2% meters 
in circumference. Hence the specimen measured by Von Humboldt 
was then only about 210 years old! 

The tooth of time has not been able to gnaw away a single 
sentence of the Bible. The schemes of ingenious wickedness have 
all proved signal failures. The efforts of pretended friends to cloister 
it in concealment, and of open enemies to crush it beneath the foot 
of malice, have been equally impotent. Ridicule, sword, and flame 
have all alike failed. The many books of infidelity have perished, 
with the exception of a few, which modern infidelity has much ado 
to keep alive. Hence its change of tactics. But here is the Book, 
now in larger circulation than ever, translated and being translated 
into all the languages of the earth, and by what it has done proves 
what it will do. This fact is not equaled in the history of any other 
book. Long since, judging by human productions, it ought to have 
perished by the force of adversities no other has ever passed through. 

God is its Preserver no less than its Author. Deny this, and the 
Bible, with its history, becomes the most embarrassing of all miracles. 

Every time a ship crosses the Atlantic, there is an additional 
proof that the science of navigation is a true science ; and every 
application of an honest method of reason to Christianity proves it 
to be the embodiment of Revealed Truth, perfectly adapted to the 
highest welfare of humanity. 

Revealed truth is a matter of fact, which took fifteen hundred 
years for its own completion in well-authenticated and well-preserved 
records. For nearly two thousand years it has not only established 
itself in the confidence of tens of thousands who have died for 3% 
and of millions who have lived and labored for it, but has outlived 
its most demonstrative enemies. And in spite of all this violent 
opposition, the truth of the Bible now appeals to all men, as did the 
Master, “Believe Me for the very works’ sake”; and every man is 
responsible for his neglect of this appeal. 

Between Moses and John there was an interval of more than 


Essays on Evolution. 3 


84 THE PERMANENCE OF SPECIES. 


fifteen hundred years, during which the whole of revelation was 
made. All the books were written amid the strangest diversity of 
time, place, and condition; they are written in different forms of 
history, biography, poems, and prophecy; yet there is an evident 
unity of design pervading the whole, which proves a unity of origin 
in some source not within the minds of the authors, but without. 
This Source controlled them so as to bring each man’s thoughts to 
crystallize around the same thread extended through all these cen- 
turies, and especially with regard to the Messiah, the Hope of Israel. 
How is all this to be explained? Shall we say it may be accounted 
for by the infidel’s suggestion that the Old Testament was forged to 
make people believe the New? This is not only absurd in itself, 
but plainly impossible, since the Old Testament was translated into 
Greek nearly three hundred years before the birth of Christ. Yet 
here the titles of the Messiah are all recorded and when brought 
together, make an anticipated biography of Him wonderfully minute 
and distinct for an outline. The supposition of forgery is therefore 
a monstrous foolishness. This question, then, pushes itself before us: 
How could such a variety of events be predicted by such a variety 
of men living amid such a variety of times and places, and not one 
of the predictions fail, as proved by correspondent events? There 
can be but one answer: — 
The Christian religion is the truth of God! 





3. The Permanence of Species. 


“We dare not take our religion and our religious instruction 
from professed agnostics like Darwin and accept his reasoning 
against the inspired Word of God.” 

With this declaration the editor of a metropolitan daily, the 
New Orleans States, ranged himself on the side of the great body 
of educated Americans who are not ready to accept the doctrine of 
evolution. The States had previously been outspoken in its pro- 
fession of belief in the Bible. Reacting on this stand of the paper, 
a student of the Louisiana State University addressed a letter to 
the editor which was published October 14, 1924. So characteristic of 
the mental attitude of many are the views set forth in this letter 
that I shall quote its line of reasoning.— This university student 
writes : — 

“You misunderstand the word ‘evolution.’ In a correct sense 
I believe it is used to denote a change due to circumstances. For 
instance, you do a great amount of hard work, and soon you have 
horny places on your hands known as ‘corns.’ But if you do no work 





THE PERMANENCE OF SPECIES. 85 


your hands become tender. It was in such a manner that the hoof 
of animals was formed. The ‘corns’ after generation on generation 
formed the hoof. Is it not probable that the whale, finding life 
nearer the shore more congenial and free from dangers, lived there 
for a time, swimming away from shore when danger made it neces- 
sary, and finally becoming part fish and part land animal, that finally 
took to the seas?” 


Two questions are suggested by this statement: — 


I. What Is Evolution? II. Do Species Change as Here Described? 
ae 


Evolution is defined in this paragraph: “change due to cireum- 
stances.” If this definition were correct, none of us would hesitate 
to accept evolution as a fact. That there is constant change in 
nature as in human society is evident. No one can deny that from 
simple beginnings we have complicated machinery. In this sense no 
one will deny that there has been an evolution. Consider only how 
the modern tractor and harvester have been developed from the 
original plow and threshing-flail; the ocean liner from the birch- 
bark canoe; the modern flour-mill from the original two millstones; 
the high-power rifle from the bow and arrow; the modern printing- 
press from the original chisel or goose-quill. Here is evolution, if you 
want to call it that. Even so we admit a sort of development in 
nature. The first, wild apple-tree was something entirely different 
from the modern juicy product of Pocatello. The Marshal Niel 
rose is developed from the ordinary briar-rose. Those wonders of 
the race-track, Zev and Papyrus, have been bred from wild, untract- 
able ancestors roaming the prairies. Everybody knows about Bur- 
bank’s plums and roses. And so if the change from wild to tame, 
from wolf-dog to St. Bernard, if the line that connects the wigwam 
with the steel sky-scraper, are to be called evolution, then we are all 
evolutionists. 

But the strange thing is that the moment we pass the boundary 
of human activity, of human thinking, training, and striving, we 
strain our eyes in vain for a scrap of evidence in favor of evolution. 
Among the activities of animals there are no signs of development. 
The birds construct their nests, the beavers their dams, the bee- and 
ant-colonies carry on their complex operations, precisely as they 
always have done. Moreover, each of those creatures does its work 
perfectly at the very first attempt, whereas man makes innumerable 
failures before he can do anything even passably well. 

Evolution, in the accepted sense, is much more than develop- 
ment. It means a change brought about in plants, animals, and in 


36 THE PERMANENCE OF SPECIES. 


human affairs through the action of forces that reside in matter. 
In the letter before us we find an intolerant attitude towards the 
miracles related in the Bible. The writer of it believes that the 
wonderful incidents related in the Bible may be “nice stories,” but 
are pure fiction or fable. It is precisely in a mind of this type that 
the evolutionary theory will find a ready response. Much has been 
made by Mr. Bryan and others of the tendency which this theory has 





(c) Underwood 


Zev —and Other Winners of the Race Track — 
Not the Result of Natural Selection. 


Without the breeder’s science the descendants of In Memoriam, Zey, and 
Papyrus stock would in a few generations again be scrub ponies 
of the prairies. 


to destroy man’s faith in the Bible. In far the greater number of 
cases, however, faith has long departed from the heart when a man 
becomes an evolutionist. Remember that submission to the historical 
truth of the Bible involves a submission to the Moral Law which it 
teaches. Man loves sin. He hates the Law of God. To get rid of 
this terrible taskmaster, the simplest short-cut is to deny that God 
gave this Law. Hence all those who prefer to lead an evil life seize 
with eagerness every doctrine which permits them to sin without fear 


THE PERMANENCE OF SPECIES, 37 


of future punishment. Hence a doctrine which does away with all 
miracles, with all laws, with creation, is received with much alacrity. 
And this is just what the theory of evolution does. It places, instead 
of the will and decree of a divine Creator, Natural Law. By reason 
of certain forces that are believed to reside in matter, all things have 
of themselves become what they are. 

Evolution, then, is far more than simply a doctrine of develop- 
ment. It is a doctrine which permits God at one or two points to 
make a start, —as when life was created and when man received his 
reasoning powers, — but which treats God at best as an absentee God, 
who has nothing to do with human life and conduct. And since 
a God who is not active, creative, and self-revealed, is not God at 
all, the doctrine of evolution is very properly called a godless, 
atheistic doctrine. 

Lis 

The young evolutionist refers to the gathering of “corns” (no 
doubt callouses are meant) on the hands, due to hard use. In this 
way, he says, the hard hoofs of animals have developed. This is, 
indeed, the contention of evolutionists. No one, to be sure, will deny 
that animals and plants change their form and even habits as they 
change their home (environment). Trees at the timber-line of the 
Rockies are stunted. Or compare the magnolia of Louisiana and of 
Illinois. But though climate and food may work changes also in 
animals, these changes never amount to the change or transformation 
of one kind into another kind. There is never an origin of 
a new species. 

Ants have been found enclosed in amber said to be two million 
years old; yet these ants in the smallest detail are like ants of to-day. 

To the present day, microbes possess a simple form, like a comma, 

a ring, etc. Since the universe was first made, they have not 
changed their form or habits. 
Even species closely related have existed from the beginning. 
The dingo, or wild dog, of Australia is a true dog in every sense as 
to structure, habits, etc.; yet he is found in fossil forms embedded 
in the rocks, which proves that he existed as a separate species from 
the oldest times. By selective breeding we have produced numerous 
varieties of dogs, chickens, pigeons, etc., from one or two common 
stocks, but we have never succeeded in getting any of these to cross 
the line of species. 

By cross-breeding species it is possible to produce new species 
which will endure for a time, but which invariably die out. These 
are called hybrids. Of the 40,000 “blackberry plus raspberry” hybrids 
obtained by Burbank, only one is still in existence. The strange 
thing is that the hybrids cannot reproduce! Thereby falls the whole 


388 THE PERMANENCE OF SPECIES. 


theory of natural selection; for even if species are crossed and 
a different animal results (as, for instance, the mule), the develop- 
ment stops right there, because these animals are neuters (unfertile). 

If the study of plants and animals has proved anything, it is 
that in the state of nature, animals do not change into new species. 
Everybody knows that if the artificially cultivated pouter or carrier- 
pigeons are turned loose and allowed to mingle with others, their 
offspring in every case after a few generations will be the blue 
rock pigeon with the three black bars across its wing, from which 
all pigeons are descended. If it were not for continual scientific 
breeding, our noble full-blooded horses, our feathered aristocrats — 
chickens, pigeons, ducks,— would soon again be the scrub beasts 
from which they were developed by the direction and oversight of 
man. The immense herds of mustangs roaming the prairies of the 
West and South in the past were descendants of noble Spanish horses 
reverted to a state of nature after the withdrawal of the cultivating 
hand of man. 

The same applies to animals in a state of nature. One example 
must suffice. In certain Austrian caves exists a blind fish called 
proteus. Due to the absence of light, the eyes of the proteus have 
completely disappeared, the skin being unbroken by any mark where 
the eyes usually are. In 1914 a Vienna zoologist, Dr. P. Kammerer, 
took some of these fish into an aquarium when they were newly born. 
To the amazement of European scientists these specimens of proteus 
grew eyes, perfect eyes, with lens, retina, and the necessary muscles 
to move the eye-balls! Furthermore, by observing the motions of 
these fish when worms were dangled before them outside the 
aquarium, it was absolutely proved that these eyes could see. This 
is one of the most famous experiments in the history of biological 
science. It conclusively proved that species never permanently 
change their form in a state of nature. Countless generations of 
proteus have been blind, eyeless. Yet under normal conditions the 
eyes again were there. 

And so, wherever the tests are made, it is proved an undeniable 
fact that species do not evolve. They are what scientists call “fixed.” 
The modern ox has not derived his hoof from ecallouses on his toes. 
It is very easy and simple to say that the plants and animals have 
acquired their form and colors through use, that what was useful 
to preserve life again appeared in the offspring. But while a fine 
theory, not a vestige of proof has ever been produced that this takes 
place, and the greatest British authority on heredity, Dr. Bateson, 
said only four years ago: “That particular and essential bit of the 
theory of evolution which is concerned with the origin and nature 
of species, remains utterly mysterious.” 


THE BARRIER OF INSTINCT. 39 


4. The Barrier of Instinct. 


We called him Archibald. He had been caught in a V-trap 
half-way up a hill on the banks of the Big Piney River. When we 
brought him down to the cottage, he was “playing ’possum.” 
Naturally. He was an opossum. : 

The opossum is not a very pleasant companion, for his odor is 
a trifle strong. We kept Archibald three days, then carried him up 
the hillside one evening at dusk, and he quickly disappeared up 
a giant oak. 

Archibald’s habits and appetite were a mystery to us. But he 
and his tribe are an even greater mystery to the evolutionists. In 
their writings they give him a wide berth. This extraordinary 
creature has a tail covered with scales, like the tail of a rat, but, 
unlike the tail of a rat, he can suspend himself with it from a branch, 
as by a fifth and powerful hand. All the toes are equipped with 
~ claws, except the inner toe of the hind foot, which acts like a thumb. 
In his jaws there is one more wisdom-tooth than is possessed by 
any ape. The female is provided with a pouch in which the young, 
after birth, are nourished. According to the doctrine of evolution 
all existing species are the descendants of common ancestors, from 
which they diverge in various degrees. The only animals related to 
the opossum are the kangaroo of Australia! So the evolutionist 
must assume that, independent of each other from some far-away 
ancestor, the kangaroo developed its pouch in Australia and the 
opossum its pouch in America! We are not surprised that evolu- 
tionists avoid all discussion of the animal; for it is absolutely 
necessary to find some connecting link between the opossum and the 
other four-footed animals, and this is impossible. Furthermore, 
the problem is complicated by the fact that Archibald’s cousin, the 
kangaroo, had ancestors, now found as fossils in the rocks, of 
monstrous size. Whereas the horse is said to have developed from 
a five-toed animal the size of a cat, the kangaroo represents an evolu- 
tion from larger to much smaller forms. And so when the question 
of these “marsupial” animals is approached, the evolutionists wisely — 
“play ?possum.” 

This trick of the opossum, by the way, is one common to all 
wild beasts. When you pass unexpected by a squirrel or a chipmunk, 
he “freezes,” as the naturalists call it. While danger is nigh, the 
animals are absolutely rigid. I have thus seen the mink “freeze” on 
the river’s edge when it saw me at dawn in the fishing-boat. Turtles 
and moccasin snakes, frogs and lizards act the same way, as well as 
all wild birds and most insects. Why do they do it? So as not to 
be noticed. But why escape notice? Because to attract attention 


40 THE BARRIER OF INSTINOT. 


might endanger their lives. This the wild beasts know. Has expe- 
rience taught them? Certainly not; one “experience” of this kind 
would mean death to them. The opossum shams death, wild animals 
take a rigid position (“freeze”), by instinct. We say this so lightly, 
rarely thinking how great a mystery the word covers. 

By what process of evolution, do you suppose, have these instincts 
been developed in animals? (For according to that theory every- 
thing has been evolved.) The problem is a serious one, for on the 
functioning of instinct depends the very existence of all animals 
and, through them, a great part of the vegetable world. If the 
instinct does not “work,” the animal dies; not immediately, but 
most certainly. The life of the animals, from the greatest to the 
least of them, depends upon instinct. 

There is the water-spider. It lives under water and rears its 
young under water. It spins under the water an egg-shaped water- 
proof skin, or envelope, open underneath. When finished, it goes 
to the surface, and with its hind legs, which are covered with hair, it 
takes hold of a large bubble of air, carries it down into the water 
and releases it into the house, thus expelling a quantity of water. 
This is continued until the cell is filled with air. In it the spider 
lays its eggs and rears its offspring. The water-spider does all this 
perfectly the first time. Unless its instinct directed it with®Such 
utter perfection, it would never have living offspring, and the species 
would die. By what means could such instincts be developed ? 

Only three years ago the mystery of the European eel was solved. 
A Danish expedition, 1921—22, sent out to investigate the depth of 
the ocean, supplied the answer to the question: Where do the eels 
rear their young? Every year great masses of tiny eels appear on 
the coast and enter the streams. There they live and attain their 
size. Where have they come from? The Danish scientists have 
discovered that the eels have their breeding-places in the ocean, south 
of the Bermudas, at a depth of 25,000 feet! Starting from the 
European rivers, the eels travel more than a thousand miles to these 
ocean depths and there lay their eggs, which during three years 
develop into small eels. During these three years they move towards 
the coast of Europe and there enter the rivers. That the instincts 
necessary for all these operations should have been evolved through 
natural causes (“by chance”) requires more faith, it seems to me, 
than to believe in the creation and preservation of living things by 
an almighty Creator. 

The migration of birds at certain seasons is something with 
which we are all familiar. But when you see the ducks going South 
in the fall, do you ever consider that this is one of the greatest 
mysteries of nature? Alfred Newton has said: “We are here brought 


THE BARRIER OF INSTINCT. 41 


face to face with the greatest mystery which the whole animal 
kingdom presents.” The night-hawk travels from Alaska to Argen- 
tina, 7,000 miles! The golden plover, whose home is the Arctic 
Circle, travels over land to Nova Scotia, thence 2,400 miles across 
the ocean to South America. Endless theories have been supplied 


. x WS 


(LLL ye 
eR 
xf anh 





Bere My pe 


& 





ia WINTER HOME 
wene PRINCIPAL MIGRATION, ROUTES 


(c) U.S. Biological Survey. 





The Range of the Golden Plover. 


The longest-known single flight of any bird is 
that of the Golden Plover over the ocean from 
Nova Scotia to South America, 2,400 miles. 
Who taught it the way? 


in order to account for this migration instinct, but there is no 
solution. Any one can see that the despair of evolutionists to explain 
how such an instinct could evolve is well founded. 

Polecats (skunks) will, to feed their young, instinctively catch 
and mutilate frogs and toads so that they cannot get away, while 


42 THE BARRIER OF INSTINOT. 


they remain alive and therefore fresh and good for food. On one 
occasion as many as forty frogs and two toads were found in a hole 
beside a nest of young polecats. They were alive, but only capable 
of sprawling a little, because they were all dexterously bitten through 
the brain. 

An analogous instinct is possessed still more perfectly by a kind 
of wasp. It will pounce upon some caterpillar or spider and sting it 
so adroitly as, without killing it, to destroy all its power of motion. 
Then it will place it in its nest beside its egg, out of which comes in 
due time a grub, which feeds on the victim, while the grub itself is 
so helpless that it would be quite unable to deal with its prey had its 
prey not been thus previously paralyzed. 

The female carpenter-bee, in order to protect her eggs, excavates 
in some piece of wood a series of chambers, one above another, 





Wasp and Caterpillar. 


Wasp paralyzing a caterpillar. If the caterpillar died, the young wasps 

would be without food, since the dead caterpillars would shrivel up. 

By paralyzing the caterpillars, the wasp makes sure that they will not 

get away. How could such an instinct be developed? What good would 
it do if half developed? 


separated by partitions, the lower chamber communicating with the 
exterior. She lays an egg in each chamber, beginning with the lowest. 
From the lowest chamber the offspring — the grub — escapes by the 
passage left for it. The inhabitant of the chamber next above 
gnaws through the floor of its dwelling and makes its way out by 
the same path as did its predecessor. The inhabitants of the superior 
chambers then act similarly in succession. Evidently this complex 
nest harmonizes in a most admirable way with the needs of the 
grubs, which had hatched in order of age, the oldest, or one first 
laid, being the first. But it is no less evident that the young mother 
could have no knowledge of the series of actions which were to ensue 
after she had completed her nest. 

The larva of the emperor-moth, when about to become a chrysalis, 


THE BARRIER OF INSTINCT. : 43 


spins for itself a double cocoon, but leaves an opening fortified with 
elastic bristles, which point outwards, so arranged that, while they 
readily yield to pressure from within (allowing the moth to make its 
way out easily), the bristles firmly resist pressure from without. 
As most persons know, moths and butterflies habitually lay their 
eggs on the leaves of such plants as will nourish their young, although 
the parents do not feed upon them or use them in any way. It may 
even be that the parents do not feed at all, and it would be too 
unreasonable to affirm that they can recollect what they did before 





(c) From Kellogg, Animal Life, Appleton. 


How Do They Do It? 
The beaver fells trees, builds dams across streams, and builds elaborately 


constructed villages of several-storied houses. The beavers do all this by 
instinct. They do not learn, they simply know how. 


they entered upon the chrysalis condition, and that they consciously 
foresee that their eggs will give forth creatures such as they once 
were. Still more monstrous, however, would it be to affirm that 
a grub could foresee the shape of the body it is destined to have 
when transformed, especially when the shape is widely different in 
the two sexes. Yet the grub of the female stag-beetle, when she digs 
the hole wherein she will undergo her metamorphosis, digs it no 
bigger than her own body; whereas the grub of the male stag-beetle 
makes a hole twice as large as his own body, in order to leave room 


44 EVOLUTION AND DISEASE. 


for the enormous jaws (the so-called “horns”) which he will have 
to grow. 

Can we believe that the wasp which seizes spiders and cater- 
pillars, accidentally stung them each, respectively, in the exact, but 
very different spot needful to induce paralysis? Certainly the wasp 
knew nothing of the internal anatomy of its prey. It is also incredible 
that the complex excavation of the carpenter-bee is either due to an 
accident or to a calculation as to the future. 

Now observe that evolution means development by many slow 
stages. But how could instincts preserve life when they were as yet 
incomplete? The opossum shams death. If that trick had not at 
first been made so perfect that the enemy’s attention was eluded, it 
would only have made the animal’s extinction the more certain. 
Unless the complicated system of instincts which exists in the bee- 
hive had been functioning perfectly from the beginning, there would 
be no bees to-day. In the hive is a queen, whose only work is to 
lay eggs. There are the drones, whose only function is to fertilize 
the queen; and there are the workers, which have no sex. These 
workers build the hive, collect the honey, rear the young, all by 
instinct; yet they could not derive these instincts from their parents 
because their parents are not workers, but queens and drones. Study 
the problem a little bit, and you will understand that the instincts 
of the bee, not being inherited, cannot be the product of evolution, 
which absolutely depends on heredity. Furthermore, if these instincts 
had been only half developed at any time, the hive would have 
perished. Even if the bee knew that it must have honey and wax, 
and where and how to get these substances, but, coming back, would 
feed the wax and try to build walls with the honey, the queen would 
never have cells or food for her eggs to hatch in. 

Instincts, it has been truthfully said, furnish the positive proof 
that evolution is not only an impossibility, but an absurdity. 


5. Evolution and Disease. 


If the Bible-story of creation is true, Adam must have “survived 
for 930 years all the germ diseases which afflict men to-day,” says 
one Dr. Charles W. Stiles according to an address widely heralded 
when it was delivered, in 1923. Dr. Stiles is said to be a “noted 
zoologist and scientific research worker,” and evidently stands com- 
mitted to the theory of evolution. His statement is part of the 
barrage which scientists of major and minor prominence were then 
laying down against Mr. W.J. Bryan’s assaults upon the theory of 
evolution. In order to make him and all Bible Christians look 





EVOLUTION AND DISEASE, 45 


ridiculous, Dr. Stiles points out that unless the disease germs came 
into being by a process of evolution, Adam must have borne them 
in himself, — tuberculosis, smallpox, yellow fever, pneumonia, and 
all the rest. And still he survived 930 years. 

Dr. Stiles is just an ordinary scoffer at the Bible narrative, such 
as the Church has had to contend with ever since the days of 
Porphyrius and Galen, in her first age, and down to the present time. 
Unbelievers always listen to such attacks with undisguised delight, 
and the press dispatches, which gave half a column to the Stiles 
address, provided much merriment for the ungodly everywhere. 
What shall we say to the argument there raised? 


Not an Evolution of Germs, but a Devolution of Man. 


Mr. Stiles bases everything on the assumption that “if it is to 
be conceded that germs which cause disease were originally created 
in some form other than disease germs, the theory of evolution stands 
admitted.” But how if there exist even now disease germs which 
were certainly not created as such? Does Dr. Stiles know the pecu- 
liarity of the tetanus (lockjaw) germ? When the germ exists in 
the rust coating of an old nail, does he call it a disease germ? Will 
he assert that it must have existed in the body of Adam in order to 
exist to-day? He knows the life-cycle of the yellow fever germ and 
of various malaria germs outside the human organism. When they 
live in the body of a mosquito, — which suffers nothing from their 
presence,—are they disease germs? Do these, and the tetanus 
bacillus, and the organisms that cause hay-fever, and others, not 
become disease germs only as they enter the human body? What 
should prevent us from accepting the proposition that they existed 
from primordial ages, and only when man’s body had beeome subject 
to disease, after the Fall, became active as carriers of that physical 
change which sets up lockjaw or malaria? Certainly, unless one 
denies offhand the Bible-story of Creation, there is nothing unreason- 
able in believing that disease germs existed from the beginning, being 
created like the rest of the vegetable kingdom (most of these minute 
structures being vegetable in nature), and only later, as they were 
able to enter the tissues of man with disintegrating influence, 
becoming active causes of disease. 

The Doctor mentions the meningitis germ, the pneumonia germ, 
the tapeworm (strange classification!), the infantile paralysis germ, 
the tuberculosis and typhus germs. He knows, of course, that 
animals are subject to all these diseases. Does it require a process 
of evolution in these organisms in order to render man subject to 
them? Is it unreasonable to suppose that the change — a devolution, 
indeed, — took place in man? That man was once, in his state of 


46 EVOLUTION AND DISEASE. 


innocence, immune to them, but later became subject to their ravages ? 
Stiles mentions, with a sneer, the 930 years of Adam. To the 
Christian believer there is an indication in the great length of life 
of the men who lived in the first two thousand years or more of Bible 
history, of an original immunity of men to the diseases that later 
reduced their span of life to some fourscore years. Certainly it 
requires no evolutionary process to account for the gradual invasion 
of many germs that existed in plants and animals and upon minerals 
into man’s organism. The change, in other words, took place not 
in the germ, but in man. Even to-day we find that some men are 
immune to certain diseases, while others are not, that some germs 
attack only children, but not adults. In such eases, has the change 
taken place in the bacilli or in man? Certainly it is not a difference 
in the germs, but in the varying powers of resistance in man that 
accounts for the difference. The writer is only an amateur in 
medicine, but he knows that much, and so do his readers, whether 
they be medical men or not. 


Germs May Change Properties, but Do Not “Evolve.” 


On the other hand, it is easily shown that certain changes do 
take place in the ability of germs to set up disease. Their properties 
change. They may be harmless, but become very dangerous. And 
some of the once most dangerous have lost much of their deadly 
power. Once harmless, or producing nothing more serious than 
a bad “cold,” the grippe or influenza germ within most recent memory 
became one of the most terrible of all pathogenic agents, slaying in 
the one year 1918 more than ten millions on all continents. (Again, 
its properties for evil seem to have lost their strength, and when 
the last epidemic took place, this was generally remarked upon.) 
So it is clear that some small organisms may become fatal 
disease germs. 

Does Dr. Stiles take into account the varying virulence of the 
diphtheria, the typhoid, the smallpox, the scarlet fever, and the 
measles germ? Evidently, in such cases, and in others that could 
be mentioned, an actual change has taken place in the power of 
these germs to set up those changes in the human body which we 
call disease. What shall prevent us from assuming that only through 
being able to develop unchecked in yarious generations of men they 
have acquired their death-dealing property, even as, conversely, 
through checks placed upon their development, as particularly in the 
case of smallpox, they have again to a large extent been robbed of 
these same properties? Harmless in the beginning, let us assume, 
the germs just mentioned have gradually become agents of disease. 
Would Dr. Stiles call this evolution? Then he is working with 


EVOLUTION AND DISEASE. 47 


a definition of evolution which no evolutionist would accept. 
Evolution is one thing, development another. That animals and 
plants may be developed no one denies. The race-horse and the 
bulldog, the grape-fruit and the navel orange, at once occur to us as 
examples of development. But horse and dog, no matter how highly 
developed, never have as a starting-point anything else than horses 
and dogs — not crocodiles or bats. And the disease germs that have 
developed qualities that now classify them as such are not, for that 
reason, products of evolution, but have in the course of time acquired 
those properties which make them harmful to man, even as they 
lose these same properties to a large extent, sometimes under the 
effect of counteracting measures, as is very evident in the case of 
the smallpox germ. 

Whence, then, disease germs? We do not know; but more 
reasonable than the unproved evolutionary hypothesis are the lines 
of thought developed above. Originally either harmless or existing 
outside of man, in animals, plants, and minerals, they have, through 
the breaking down of man’s disease-resisting powers, from the Fall 
to our day, entered this province and have now become agents 
of death. 

Dangerous Ground. 


If Dr. Stiles will look into a recent volume of the scientific 
monthly Nature, he will find a record of some interesting observa- 
tions upon the diseases with which certain fossil fish were affected 
during their lifetime. He will note, too, that these diseases were the 
products of germs, and that these germs are identical with certain 
pus-producers to-day. Hence, at least, he ought to have made 
a specific exception in the case of streptococcus and staphylococcus 
when he enumerated the germs which inhabited the body of Adam. 
He ought to have admitted that, on paleontological evidence, at 
least these existed before man and must have originated not in man, 
but outside of him and been introduced later. 

Evolutionists will give this same subject of germs a wide berth, 
if they are wise. The reader will forgive us if we become a bit 
technical here. Evolution is, according to evolutionists of every 
school, possible only through the transmission, from parent to off- 
spring, of favorable variations. Thus the feather of the eagle’s wing, 
the eye of the fly, and every organ in every plant and animal are 
said to have been evolved. Hence the evolutionary process depends 
absolutely upon the frequency with which animals reproduce in 
a given time. Hence, again, the changes will be very slow where 
the generations are long, as in the case of the elephant, or certain 
parrots, while in animals which reproduce once a year or even oftener, 
the chances for evolution are in the same ratio more favorable. 


48 THE ASSURED RESULTS OF SCIENCE AND DR. EINSTEIN. 


Now, the germs which are under discussion, reproduce, on favorable 
soil, as the diphtheria germ in the throat of a child, thousands of 
times in a day. Hence it follows that in a thousand years the 
chances of an elephant to evolve from a parent species are as one 
is to countless millions compared with the opportunity of a tetanus 
or diphtheria bacillus. But it is a marvelous fact that these bacilli 
have changed in no particular since the days of Greek and Roman 
medical diagnosis, the descriptions of-diseases recorded two thousand 
years ago tallying exactly with the diagnosis made to-day. Yea, 
even the diseases from which Egyptians died 2000 B.C. can be 
definitely established by expert examination of their mummies. In 
other words, those very organisms which, on account of their rapid 
multiplication, possessed opportunities for natural evolution incal- 
culably higher than any other plant or animal, have not changed 
in any particular in historic and even, as in the case of the fossil 
fishes referred to, since prehistoric times! 

I fear that by raising the issue of disease germs, Dr. Stiles has, 
as we say in common parlance, “caught a Tartar.” 


6. The Assured Results of Science and Dr. Einstein. 
(Letter to Timothy Smith, High School Junior.) 


Dear TIMOTHY : — 

And so your physics teacher has told the class that, after all, 
foree and matter are sufficient to explain all existing things, and 
that a creation through the Word of God, as described in Genesis, 
is an outworn idea disproved by the “assured results of science.” 

Now, instead of going into an argument on the subject, just let 
me tell you what I heard at a meeting of the American Association 
for the Advancement of Science here in St.Louis. But before 
I tell you about it, just take this from me as a rule which you will 
find true, no matter how deeply you may hereafter delve into science: 
It is not science that contradicts the Bible, but the scientists. 
Stated in another way: Not the facts of science, not what you find 
in the test-tubes or see through the microscope, but certain specula- 
tions built upon such data, are out of harmony with the Bible. 
One may be a great scientist and remain a Christian. But let me 
tell what I heard at the A. A. A. S. meeting. 

A lecture on the Einstein Theory of Relativity had been 
announced. The lecturer was Dr. Ames, president of the Physical 
Section. Now, do you know what it means when a man is president 
of the Physical Section? It means that this man is by common 
consent recognized as one of the foremost physicists, if not the 


THE ASSURED RESULTS OF SCIENCE AND DR. EINSTEIN. 49 
foremost, in the country. Ames is professor in Johns Hopkins 
University, and has been made honorary member of the Royal 
Institution. 

We went to hear the great Dr. Ames and found ourselves in 
a company of university professors from all over the country. 
Dr. Ames spoke about an hour; fine enunciation, poor elocution, like 
most university men. But we followed him closely, and I assure you 
what he said was worth listening to. He said Dr. Einstein was 
professor in Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin when he made his 
great calculations. We were all duly mortified, but the lecturer soon 
consoled us by saying that Dr. Einstein is “not a German, but a Swiss 
Jew.” The first statement which really startled us was that “centri- 
fugal force” is a “merely fictitious thing.” But then we remembered 
that our physics teacher in the dim backward and abysm of time had 
told us that “really” there was no such force; only a convenient 
term. But matters soon became very serious indeed. Dr. Ames made 
this statement: Gravity has no reality; it is but “the result of 
transformation of your axes.” Put a pin there, Tim: Gravity does 
not exist. This looks bad for the theory of physics. Nay, it knocks 
the bottom clean out of it. Next came this, uttered in a quiet voice: 
“Hinstein proved that energy has mass.” Every university man 
present knew that this statement, if true, blows into infinitesimal 
atoms the whole theory underlying present science. They gasped 
audibly. You may not fully understand the full import of those 
six words, but let me say that, if they are true, if energy has mass, 
no more startling reversal of all that we held to be true regarding 
the ultimates of science has come to mankind in modern history. 
Finally, Dr. Ames said: “We note, in conclusion, that a number 
of old friends have disappeared. There is no force, no potential 
energy, no ether. Force,—we need the term, but it stands for no 
reality. Potential energy,—nonsense. Ether disappears; you may 
still use the term in your classrooms, but it stands for nothing.” 
(I have quoted the lecturer literally.) Consider what this means. 
1) “Force” is the basic concept of physics. When we observe that 
a body moves, we call the cause of such motion, force. Now, 
according to Einstein, force does not exist. 2) Every text on physics 
says that energy may exist as a stored-up condition; the stone 
lying on a shelf has potential energy; if it falls, it exerts kinetic 
force; but that force was “potential” while the stone was at rest on 
the shelf. “Nonsense,” says Dr. Ames; “there is no such thing.” 
3) “Ether,” of course, has never been seen; but all physicists have 
these many years maintained that it is a necessary assumption; 
light vibrates, as it comes to us through space; since there must be 


Essays on Evolution. 4 


50 THE ASSURED RESULTS OF SCIENCE AND DR. EINSTEIN. 


a medium of vibration, we call that medium ether. Fairbairn says 
in his Organic Evolution: “Science regards the existence of ether 
as certain —as a matter no longer to be called in question.” And 
so we all said until Einstein spoke. Now we know there is no ether 
of space. 

I might tell you much more. The fourth dimension figured 
prominently. Fifteen years ago, the man who speculated in the 
fourth dimension was an object of compassion to his friends; they 
would shake their heads and say, “Too bad for Jack, getting those 
bats in his belfry.” Now we hear a great scientist discuss the fourth 
dimension as familiarly as if he had trained it to eat out of 
his hand. 

But the point is this: The theories which your high school 
professor still believes in, and on the basis of which he tells you that 
all things came into being simply “through force acting.on matter 
according to certain laws,” are completely demolished by Einstein. 
Force — there is no force! And the Jaws of nature have never been 
understood. 

But this is only half my story. On my way home on the street- 
ear I bought a paper. Through some fourth-dimensional activity of 
a reporter it already contained a report on another lecture which 
had been delivered that same afternoon in the same building in 
which we had our gravity, ether, etc., removed from our system. 
And what do you suppose this lecturer announced? <A new theory of 
the universe which “completely disproves the Einstein theory”!!! 
He has “been able to determine the exact nature of the ether,’ and 
furthermore, he has almost perfected a machine by means of which 
force is extracted directly from the air, so that a cheap apparatus will 
heat our houses without the use of fuel, and cool the ice-box without 
the use of ice. No, this is not a report of observations in the 
psychopathic clinic or padded cell; it was a lecture delivered before 
the Section on Mathematics of the A. A. A.S. by Dr. H. H. Platt of 
Philadelphia. 

As between Dr. Ames and Dr. Platt, we may well permit the 
members of our high school faculties to settle the matter between 
themselves. One of the university professors, on leaving the hall, 
said to me, with some feeling: “I shall continue to teach my class 
that light undulates through ether, won’t you?’ He may, but he 
will have an uncomfortable feeling that he may be teaching his 
class “unrealities,” “nonsense.” 

Well might Dr. Ames say that the first approach to under- 
standing the Einstein system is “like discovering a new continent.” 
He added that there may be truth in the statement that only ten 
men in the world are able to follow Einstein’s mathematical demon- 


WAECKEL’S FICTITIOUS LINKS AND SOME PLIOCENE REMAINS. Bl 


stration; “but by spending a few hours a day at the matter, I hope, 
by and by, to be the eleventh or twelfth man.” The point is not 
what I think of the lecture, — which was magnificent, for all its poor 
delivery; or of the Einstein theory, — which brings such changes 
into scientific thought that it requires the utmost stretch of the 
imagination to conceive of them; the point is, — where are now the 
“assured results of science” on the basis of which your professor 
asserts that the story in the first chapter of the Bible is not true? 
That assurance has gone glimmering together with faith in ether 
and potential energy.* Q.H.D. 

Continue to study science, Timothy. Physics is a wonderful 
subject. Understand that I have been careful to say that the theory 
of physics has (very probably) fallen. Science, experimental science, 
has achieved great things, and will achieve greater if the world 
stands. But do not permit men to raise doubts in your mind con- 
cerning the Bible by urging the theories of science; these, it seems 
to me, have received a mortal wound. Give your attention to science; 
but remember “we also have a more sure word of prophecy; where- 
unto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in 
a dark place.” 2 Pet. 1,19. 





7. Haeckel’s Fictitious Links and Certain Pliocene 
Remains. 


Tn 1922 a tooth was found on a Nebraska farm. The finder was 
congratulated as though he had found a pearl of great price. A long 
Latin name was given to the tooth, and Professor Osborn, of New 
York, talked poetry. The news of this tooth was cabled all around 
the world. Let all the earth rejoice, another proof was found that 
we are first cousins to the monkey! 

When a brain-pan and a hip-bone were found in Java, Professor 
Haeckel, of Jena, traveled thither all the way from Germany in 
order to feast his eyes upon the sacred spot where the bones of 
a real ape-man had lain. Had he, Professor Haeckel, not prophesied 
the Pithecanthropus Erectus? And here he was found! — at least 
his brain-pan and a few assorted leg-bones. 

Our high school boys and girls are still being told that our 
ancestors were apes which dwelt in the trees. In the normal school 
they study Crampton’s Doctrine of Evolution, which says, page 155: 
“Human evolution has already been proved beyond question,” or 


* Dr. Ames said repeatedly that Einstein’s conclusions were “not 
theory,” but statements of demonstrable facts, mathematically arrived at 
and proved by observation! 


52, HAECKEL’S FICTITIOUS LINKS AND SOME PLIOCENE REMAINS, 


Dr. Daniel W. La Rue’s Psychology for Teachers, p.32: “We are all 
descended from a simple, wormlike creature.” Or they will read 
a Funk & Wagnalls folder, which says: “Suppose you were in that 
particular stage of evolution in which man had just discovered the 
use of the club” — etc. 

The evolutionist indignantly disclaims the present apes, or 
monkeys, as ancestors. He tells us the connecting link was a creature 
superior to these, though inferior to man as he is now constituted. 
Professor Morris, in his Man and His Ancestor (p. 67), gives a full 
description of this unseen and purely imaginary ancestor of our race 
as follows: — 

“Tt [the missing link] was probably much smaller than existing 
man, little, if any, more than four feet in height and no more than 
half the weight of man. Its body was covered, though not profusely, 
with hair; the hair of the head being woolly or frizzly in texture, 
and the face provided with a beard. The face was not jet black, like 
a typical African, but of a dull brown color, the hair being somewhat 
similar in color. The arms were long and lank, the back being much 
curved, the chest flat and narrow, the abdomen protruding, the legs 
rather short and bowed, the walk a waddling motion somewhat like 
that of the gibbon. It had deep-set eyes, greatly protruding mouth 
with gaping lips, huge ears, and general apelike aspect.” 

You may be astonished, reader, that any one could penetrate 
the dim vista of “millions of years ago” and transcribe so detailed 
and circumstantial an account of what then existed. 

Nor can we blame the text-book writers for being so cock-sure 
when even Professor Haeckel went so far as to say that we are as 
sure about the animal ancestors of men as we are about the persons 
of Caesar and King Alfred. However, let us investigate and see 
on what kind of evidence this dead-sureness of certain evolutionists 
is based. 

It is true that Professor Haeckel has “traced” the human race 
back through more than twenty stages to the earth-worm. But it 
would pay you to look up his three volumes on the descent of man 
and see how he does it. At the bottom of the series he describes six 
imaginary stages before he arrives at the earliest worm! He supposes 
that there lived a class of animals which he calls gastraea because 
they are required as ancestor for the gastrula, itself an imaginary 
being! Everybody knows that there is no evidence of an animal 
between the backbone and no-backbone animals; yet Haeckel in his 
list has No. 8, the chordonia, which he calls “undoubtedly” the 
ancestors of the backbone animals. He needs a link between the 
amphibia (land-water animals) and other beasts and so makes No. 14 
the sozura. They are “proved” to have existed because they are 


HAECKEL’S FICTITIOUS LINKS AND SOME PLIOCENE REMAINS, 58 


needed as a link. And so we get the prodidelphia, of whom, Professor 
Huxley remarks, “We have not at present the slightest knowledge.” 
But these beasts are necessary in the line of human development, — 
they must have lived in order to complete the chain. No. 21 is the 
ape-man, not yet found, although the name was given by Haeckel to 
the skull and hip-bones found on Java. 

It cannot be asserted too strongly that for this descent of man 
from the brutes there is at present no proof which goes beyond these 
bare assertions of Haeckel, and it is a lasting disgrace to biological 
science that these volumes of Haeckel could have been paraded as 
true science. Professor Wood of Dartmouth College said only last 
year: “No fossil or organic half-man has ever been discovered.” 
And again: “The fact of the matter is that there is no evidence 
that man as man has been evolved out of lower natural forms or 
organisms.” There is, of course, the Neanderthal man, the Piltdown, 
the Rhodesia man, each of them consisting not of a complete skeleton 
or even as complete skulls, but as fragments of bone, concerning which 
there is the utmost disagreement among scientists. Prof. Johannes 
Ranke, a specialist of the first rank, has thrown out all proof from 
fossil remains, and Erich Wasmann, another famous scholar, says 
in his book Modern Biology and the Theory of Evolution that the 
whole pedigree of man as once taught by evolutionists “has not the 
support of a single fossil species.” 

It is true that in the Natural History Museum at New York, 
Professor Osborn has constructed casts of plaster and cement showing 
just how the brute ancestors of man looked. And in his Outline 
of History Mr. H. G. Wells, the British novelist, treats all these 
various stages as if they could not be denied. There is the Neander- 
thal skull, a piece of bone found in a Westphalian cave in 1856. 
Does the ordinary visitor to Mr. Osborn’s cement menagerie realize 
that there are now twelve complete opinions regarding the original 
of this skull? The original Neanderthal man has been variously 
described as an idiot, a Mongolian Cossack, an early German, an 
early Dutchman, an early Frieslander, a relative of the Austrian 
Blacks, a stone-age man, a primitive ape-man, etc., etc. But the 
reader will be treated to the details of fossil human or pre-human 
remains in a later chapter. : 

To what length even reputable scholars are forced by their 
theories, appears from the startling hypothesis lately put forth by 
such scientists as Soddy, Joly, and Strutt, who assert that a super- 
race of men, a million or more years ago, inhabited earth, mastered 
radium, learned how to realize its energy, and migrated through 
space to a globe with better conditions for intellectual expansion! 
Thus are the wise made foolish in their own conceits. 


54 HAECKEL’S FICTITIOUS LINKS AND SOME PLIOCENE REMAINS. 


In a paper read at the Victorian Institute in London, Dr. A. T. 
Schofield said in April, 1922: “Some Japanese fossil skulls just 
discovered, and some others of very remote date, have actually 
a larger brain capacity than the average brain to-day. I believe it 
has been gravely suggested that at that time their owners were 
becoming men, and the effort was so great that extra brain capacity 
was required for this purpose. This illustration shows how ridiculous 
such attempted explanations may become.” 

On scientific grounds it has lately been held that man is more 
“primitive” than the higher apes, that the monkey is really descen- 
dent from man! Thus Dr. Wood-Jones of England in 1918 wrote: 
“Far from being a descendant of the apes, he may be looked on as 
their ancestor. ... Indeed, from the point of view of anatomy 
IT conceive it to be impossible to take any other ‘view.’” (The 
Problem of Man’s Ancestry, 1918, pp. 38.39.) Please note that these 
views were set forth before the University of London and were based 
on the most recent anatomical research. 

From the beginning the mistake was made of comparing only 
the skull of man and apes. More recently the entire structure of 
man and the brutes has been more carefully studied, and it has 
been discovered that it is impossible to derive the body of man from 
one single type of apes. And so Professor Mivart says in Lessons 
from Nature, page 176: “If man and the orangutan are diverging 
descendants of a creature with certain cerebral [brain] characters, 
then that remote ancestor must also have had the wrist of the 
chimpanzee, the voice of a long-armed ape, the blade-bone of the 
gorilla, the chin of the siamang, the skull-dome of an American ape, 
the hip-bone of a slender loris, the whiskers and beard of a saki, 
the liver and stomach of the gibbons, and a number of other char- 
acters in which the various several forms of higher or lower apes, 
respectively, approximate to man.” Let us grip on to these facts, 
for facts they are. Identifying a tooth or a leg-bone is now regarded 
by specialists of the first order as an impossible procedure if the 
object is to identify man with the brute. If there had been any 
derivation of one from the other, it would be the ape that shows 
signs of descent from a nobler stock. Is it not best to come back 
to*the Bible and accept its plain teaching that, whereas animals were 
created each “after his kind” (species), man was made in the image 
of God? 

It would seem to us that the discovery of human remains in 
Pliocene rock, mixed with the remains of tools and other implements, 
would convince the Darwinians that they have been barking up the 
wrong tree. Let me explain. 


HAECKEL’S FICTITIOUS LINKS AND SOME PLIOCENE REMAINS. 55 


Certain layers of rock are called Pliocene.* They are thought 
to be very old, millions of years, in fact. All the so-called human 
remains and fossils above referred to have been found in the soil 
and not in the rocky layers of the earth’s surface. In recent years, 
however, human fossils have been found in the so-called Pliocene 
strata. In what seems to be undisputed upper Pliocene layers, 
J. Reid Moir, the British archeologist, recently has discovered a work- 
shop, or flint worker’s floor, sixteen feet below the present surface 
of the ground. From this floor he has taken a large number of 


* The following table shows the major divisions of geological time 
as divided into eras and periods: — 


ec *$*$—0Iaw»a»—\<—wmwm—=m—=—m=—0 


Age Eras Periods Life-Forms 

















Quaternary, or | Recent 
Post-Tertiary,| Terrace Man 
or Pleistocene] Drift (Glacial) 


CENOZzOIC Pliocene 
Miocene 
Tertiary Oligocene Mammals 
Eocene 
Paleocene 


Upper, or Cretaceous Proper 
Lower, or Comanchean 


{ Upper (Malm) 
Mesozoic |JUrassic Middle (Dogger) 
Lower (Lias) 


Cretaceous 


Reptiles, Conifers, 
and Palms 
Dinosaur 





ae Upper (Keuper) 
Triassic Middle (Muschelkalk ) 
Lower (Bunter Sandstein) 


Upper 
Lower Amphibians and 


Pennsylvanian Coal Plants 
Mississippian 


Permian 





Carboniferous 


: Upper 
Devonian Middle Fishes and Insects 
Lower 





PALEOZOIC Upper, or Monroan 
Silurian Middle, or Salina. 
Lower, or Niagara 


Upper, or Cincinnatian 
Ordovician Middle, or Champlainian Invertebrates 
Lower, or Canadian 





Saratogan. 
Cambrian Acadian 
Waucobian 
Primary, or| Algonkian Few Fossils or 


Primitive | Archaean None 


56 HAECKEL’S FICTITIOUS LINKS AND SOME PLIOCENE REMAINS. 


“cores, flakes, flint implements, and stones exhibiting crackling and 
other evidences of having been subjected to the action of fire.” 
Commenting on this remarkable discovery, Henry Fairfield Osborn 
says: “It is these flints, discovered by Moir, which firmly establish 
the existence of Pliocene man in Britain. That this was a working 
floor is indicated by the presence of flint cores and flint flakes with 
the flint implements themselves.” 

Read these quotations again and keep them well in mind. 

They prove that man had reached a high state of development, 
so that he was able to fashion tools and pottery and to use fire, at 
a time much earlier than when the present soil or upper layer of 
the earth was laid down, in which the remains of the so-called ape- 
man have been found. In other words, man was an intellectual 
being, far ahead of the highest animals (no animal has ever made 
a tool or built a fire) at a time much earlier than the age in which 
the people in Professor Osborn’s freak-show lived. 

Why do the evolutionists say so little about the Calaveras skull 
found in California? Here was a skull found 150 feet below the 
surface of the earth without a sign of an inferior race in its form. 
Dr. Keith, the famous British anthropologist, says: “The skull was 
not the only evidence of man in the ancient gold-bearing river gravels 
in Calaveras County. These gravels lie buried under tides of lava 
which swept the western flanks of the Sierra Nevada in the Miocene 
and Pliocene periods. There are the most circumstantial accounts 
of the discovery, in the gravel beds of these ancient Pliocene streams, 
of stone mortars, stone pestles, hammer stones, spear-heads, etc., not 
only by miners, but by expert and reliable geologists. Indeed, were 
such discoveries in accordance with our expectations, if they were in 
harmony with the theories we have formed regarding the date of 
man’s evolution, no one would ever dream of doubting them, much 
less of rejecting them. Note that these human remains are found 
buried underneath lava floods of Pliocene and Miocene (which is 
still older) date, and that the only reason for discarding the 
evidence is that it does not suit evolution.” Other worked flints 
have been obtained in Miocene strata at Otta, in the valley of the 
Tagus, and at Puy in France. “There is not,” says Keith, “a single 
fact known to me which makes the existence of a human form in the 
Miocene period an impossibility.” 

Similarly Prof. Ludwig Hopf admits that stone knives, carved 
bones, marks of fireplaces, and human skeletons have been found in 
strata of rock which, according to the geologists, date from a period 
in which man was represented only by a very remote brute ancestor. 
Hopf refers to these remains as “clear proof of the existence of 
Tertiary man.” (The Human Species, 1909, page 34.) 


HAECKEL’S FICTITIOUS LINKS AND SOME PLIOCENE REMAINS. 57 


A genuine pair of human skulls has been found in Santa 
Barbara, Cal., of late, which, it is claimed, are of immense antiquity, 
and as they were found in connection with manufactured objects, 
implements of all kinds, including fish-hooks, they would constitute 
another instance in line with those just mentioned. It must be 
remembered that quite a number of skulls have been found in the 
United States and in South America exhibiting those characteristics 
which we associate with the early race called after the Neanderthal, 
where the remains of the first example met with were discovered. 
Yet experts, after careful examination of these skulls, have so far 
come to the conclusion that they belong to a relatively modern 
variety of the Indian type. I have not seen the final findings as to 
the Santa Barbara skulls. 

The discovery of the dinosaur pictograph, which carries back 
the origin of man as a reasoning creature ten millions of years 
farther into the past than the Pliocene, is treated in a later chapter. 

The Western fossil fields, for a great number of years, have been 
a great comfort to evolutionists. Have not the Idaho fields produced 
the bones of fossil horses with three or four toes? And has not the 
faith of evolutionists been strong enough to accept these creatures 
as ancestors of the modern horse in spite of the fact that the little 
four-toed horse is about the size of a tabby-cat? + Has not more 


+ Another insuperable difficulty attaches to the evolution of the horse. 
In all the texts on evolution (for instance, in Fiske’s Darwinism, p. 30 ff.; 
Edw. Clodd’s Story of Creation, p. 31; Encyclopedia Britannica, Article 
“Evolution”) the development of the horse from a four-toed to a one-toed 
animal is pictured. It is not generally known, however, that these fosgsils 
have been found more than five thousand miles apart, with the Atlantic 
Ocean between. The early ancestry has been traced from Tertiary deposits 
of North America while the later forms have been found in Europe. 
Prof. Geo. B. O’Toole, in his remarkable Macmillan book The Case Against 
Hvolution, points out that “it would be absurd to suppose that two inde- 
pendent lines of descent could have ended in producing one and the same 
type, namely, the one in Europe, the other in far-away America. Neither 
could the transformists admit that the extinct American horse and the 
living European horse could have converged from two distinct ancestral 
origins.” So what is to be done to meet the emergency and to keep the 
current theory on its feet? “Nothing remains, therefore,” says our author, 
“but to hypothecate a Tertiary land-bridge between Europe and North 
America.” Accordingly it is assumed that such a passageway was formed 
by some remarkable upheaval that saved the hypothesis! Think it over: 
The little Eohippus, or mayhap the Orohippus, the tiny progenitors of the 
modern horse, creatures about the size of a cat or a fox, traveled from the 
central part of the United States to the Atlantic coast, then continued 
across the conveniently constructed Tertiary bridge more than three thou- 
sand miles long over to Europe, and. there evolved through the ages into 
the modern draught-horse and the graceful pacer! And yet the evolu- 
tionists tell us that the history of Eohippus and his progeny is perhaps 
the strongest available proof of their theory and places it upon an abso- 
lutely scientific basis! 


58 HAECKEL’S FICTITIOUS LINKS AND SOME PLIOCENE REMAINS, 


recently, on a Nebraska farm, a tooth been found to which Professor 
Osborn has bowed himself seven times to the ground, hailing it as 
the undoubted tooth of the long-sought missing link? But now, as 
in Byron’s poem, a change has come over the aspect of their dream. 
Evolutionists begin to listen with misgivings to the stories of 
prehistoric finds that come from the West. The Santa Barbara man 
lost no less than 17,000 years within one week after he was unearthed. 
The duck eggs laid in soft pleistocene mud 600,000 years ago have 
been found to be just balls of clay rolled up by the ocean waves. 
Dr. George M. Price, the Western geologist, has published highly 
distasteful facts about layers of rock that lie in the reverse order 
which they should have according to geology, — that have old fossils 
on top, young fossils below. 

Last year Rev. F. A. Haedicke, of Reno, Nev., wrote me about 
Mr. John T. Reid, a mining geologist of Lovelock, Ney., and about 
the imprint which he found of a shoe-sole embedded in an ancient 
layer of rock. In fact, the rock is of the triassic period, which is 
about thirty million years older than the layers in which the remains 
of “ape-men” have been found. Yet this rock bears the obvious 
imprint of a human shoe, proving that at this early date man had 
developed far beyond the brutes, so that he was able to fashion 
clothing. About the classification of the rock, there seems to be 
no question, since it was declared to be triassic by the United States 
Geological Survey in 1873. As for the imprint of the shoe, Dr. Alfred 
W. McCann says that by microscopic examination this has been 
proved a genuine fossil of “superb perfection.” (Dr. McCann in 
New York Globe, March 21, 1922.) Mr. Reid has addressed a per- 
‘ sonal letter to me, pointing out the technical works in which the 
age of this particular layer of rock is discussed. At that time 
Mr. Reid informed me also of a more recent find, that of a complete 
horse’s foot, which he was about to take to New York. Soon the 
newspapers began to report the astonishing find submitted by 
Mr. Reid to the New York scientists. The fossil in question repre- 
sents, to all intents and purposes, a horse such as we to-day know; 
yet it was found in a layer of stone much older, according to the 
scientists, than the layer in which the four-toed “horse” has been 
found! Mr. Reid said to a reporter of the New York Times: — 

“My theory, greatly strengthened by this fossilized horsefoot, 
is that the good Lord originally made these things as we see them 
to-day. Although I was an evolutionist in the beginning, I have 
changed my view.” 

From all of which we conclude that there has been no evolution 
of the horse. Furthermore, the geological ages are becoming more 
and more doubtful as we hear these conflicting claims of scientists. 


HAECKEL’S FICTITIOUS LINKS AND SOME PLIOCENE REMAINS. 59 


When anthropologists summarize their findings concerning the 
origin of the human race, they are now much more modest in 
their claims than they used to be. Prof. Wm. Bateson of England 
says that the doctrine has “developed too fast” and that “a great deal 
has got to come down.” For over half a century the students of 
plant and animal life have investigated the various clews which 
would explain man’s relation to other living things. As Prof. G. M. 
Price says: “We are now getting the returns of these investigations. 
The reports are coming in. And these reports are to the effect that 
there must be a mistake somewhere, for biologically this theory 
eannot be true.” 

One of the most startling books produced in twenty-five years 
is Oswald Spengler’s massive work Der Untergang des Abendlandes, 
published soon after the war and already translated into most modern 
tongues. The title signifies, “The Decay of the Western World.” 
In Spengler’s opinion modern civilization, as we know it, is in a state 
of decay and is hastening towards complete and utter ruin. One of 
my correspondents, Rev. F. C. Knief, of Santa Monica, Cal., has 
found in Spengler’s book (Vol. IJ, p.35) the following significant 
statement regarding evolution, which I shall endeavor to translate. 
Spengler writes : — 

“Our notions regarding the history of the earth’s crust and of 
the various forms of life is still controlled by the theory of Lyell 
and of other Englishmen, who stress a slow development extending 
over long periods, rather than sudden catastrophes, as taught by the 
great Leopold von Buch and by Cuvier. The fundamental error of 
the theory is that it excludes all forms of energy which are not active 
to-day. There is no more complete refutation of Darwin than the 
study of fossils. As far as man is concerned, the fossil remains 
prove that all forms which existed in the past correspond to those 
living to-day. Not the slightest trace of a development of the race 
towards higher structure has been found. Man has come as the 
result of sudden change, of which the Whence, How, and Why will 
be an unfathomable mystery. Thus the assumption of enormous 
periods of time for human development is unnecessary. The most 
ancient beginnings of Egyptian civilization may well fit into the 
five thousand years of accepted history. The origin of the earth, 
the beginning of life, the introduction of animated beings, are 
mysteries which we must accept as such.” 

Thus speaks a philosopher whom the entire world acclaims as 
one of the greatest thinkers of the day. Although his sentiments 
are not Christian, his rejection of Darwinism and of the geological 
periods is absolute. 

Similar revolutionary statements have recently been made by 


60 HAECKEL’S FICTITIOUS LINKS AND SOME PLIOCENE REMAINS. 


certain followers of Einstein. If the statements quoted from 
Spengler are a blow to the pseudoscientific cock-sureness of evolu- 
tionists, the results which have been elaborated from the Einstein 
theory of Relativity must be called staggering. These results mean 
nothing less than that from the standpoint of the latest philosophical 
thought the Ptolemaean system (which makes the sun move around 
the earth) is as valid as the Copernican (which makes the earth 
move around the sun)! A. Sommerfeldt writes in Sueddeutsche 
Monatshefte (Vol. 18, 1921, No.2) concerning the effect of Einstein’s 
theory on astronomy as follows: — 

“Hereafter none must be prohibited from saying: The earth 





Has this evolved from this? 


Has the form and hand and brain of Raffael been evolved from the form 
and hand and brain of the gorilla? Evolutionism says, Yes; the Bible, 
true science, and common sense say, No. 


is stationary, and the firmament revolves around the earth, or: The 
sun moves, and the earth stands in a focus of its orbit. According 
to Einstein’s theory a firmament revolving around a stationary earth 
develops the same centrifugal forces in the earth that according to 
Newton are developing in a revolving earth, and this has been 
demonstrated mathematically by Thirring. It will always be more 
convenient, and for the purpose of astronomical computation more 
practical, to work from the basis of the Copernican system. But 
it is not unreasonable to accept the Ptolemaean. Indeed, the theory 
of Relativity has been able to make its conquest just because it has 
shifted its standpoint regarding this question.” 


EVOLUTION OF MAN — THE VERDICT OF HISTORY. 61 


In Unsere Welt (1920, No. 3) Doctor H. Remy discusses “The 
' Physical Principle of Relativity” and says: “From this point of 
view the usual conflict between the Copernican and Ptolemaean 
systems finds its definite solution. We cannot deny that it is sense- 
less to call one of these systems the only correct one and to designate 
the other as being false.” 

It seems as if the world do move. 

There is in all the museums of the world and in the laboratories 
of all universities nothing that has proved untrue the words of 
Scripture when it speaks of the origin of visible creation. 

It is as true to-day as when first written in 1 Cor.15,30: “All 
flesh is not the same flesh; but there is one kind of flesh of men, 
another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds,” — 
ever separate and distinct, even to the point where a chemist can 
now tell from what particular order of “flesh” a drop of blood 
has come. 

“Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by 
the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of 
things which do appear.” Heb. 11, 3. 

“And He answered and said unto them, Have ye not read that 
He which made them at the beginning made them male and female?” 
Matt. 19,4; Mark 10,6. 

“In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all 
that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord 
blessed the seventh day and hallowed it.” Ex. 20, 11. 


8. Evolution of Man —the Verdict of History. 


Ask ten Americans what idea they connect with “progress,” 
and nine of them will answer “machinery.” When we point to 
American progress, we think of oil-burning locomotives, submarines, 
the aeroplane, the radio, the phonograph, moving pictures, the tele- 
phone, the typewriter, the adding-machine, the addressograph, check 
protectors, and fountain pens—all machinery, or the product of, 
and made possible by, machinery. That modern times have scored 
an advance on ancient times in the mechanical arts may be admitted. 
Yet for that reason to speak of a steady progress of human evolution 
would be a statement possible only if we take a very contracted view 
of progress. 

Even as regards the mechanical arts, is it true that great achieve- 
ments are scored only in modern times? Every modern builder 
stands in mute amazement before the pyramids of Egypt. Consider 
that the huge granite blocks of which the pyramids are built were 


62 EVOLUTION OF MAN — THE VERDICT OF HISTORY. 


transported 500 miles. By what knowledge of mechanics was this 
task made possible? Who gave the Egyptians the knowledge and 
skill to polish these granite blocks like glass and to fit them so that 
the joints cannot be seen? You know that the pyramids, in spite of 
their weight of millions of tons, have not settled in any part to the 
extent of a measurable fraction of an inch. Mr. Ferguson, possibly 
the greatest living authority on architecture, writes: “Nothing more 
perfect, mechanically, has ever been erected since that time, and 
we ask ourselves in vain how long it must have taken before men 
acquired such experience and such skill or were so perfectly organized 
as to contemplate and complete such undertakings.” 

On turning to his pages describing the buildings at Thebes, 
erected three thousand years ago, we find that these early Egyptian 
builders in the palace temple at Karnac put forth “perhaps the 
noblest effort of architectural magnificence every produced by the 
hand of man,” “the greatest of man’s architectural works.” This 
was in the days before Moses! And the average person thinks that 
the epoch of big buildings commences with the Masonic Temple at 
Chicago! “The farther we go back in Egyptian history,” says 
Professor Brugsch, “the more perfect their works of painting and 
sculpture”; and Professor Renouf says: “Of a state of barbarism 
or even of patriarchal life anterior to the monumental period there 
is no historical vestige. The earliest monuments which have been 
discovered present to us the very same fully developed civilization 
and the same religion as the later monuments. The blocks of the 
pyramids bear quarry marks exhibiting the decimal notation and are 
dated by the months of the calendar which was in use down to the 
latest times.” . 

In the Cairo Museum is a collection from Memphis which 
surpasses in interest anything of the kind previously found. It is 
a collection of modeled heads, now one hundred and thirty-two in 
number, representing the different races and tribes of men and women 
in that ancient world. All are characterized by that remarkable 
development of the cartoonist’s skill, so peculiarly Egyptian, which 
enabled artists of that land to catch in each case that personal 
peculiarity which distinguished one person or people from another. 
When these heads aré all identified and published by some competent 
artist, we may have our Bible and ancient history illuminated with 
“the races of men” in much the same fashion as the school geography. 
The statues and plaques carved in stone and wood to be seen in the 
Gizeh Museum prove that the priest mummifiers of Memphis four 
thousand years ago possessed a profound knowledge of anatomy. 
Science, therefore, as Lockyer remarks, is as old as art, and they have 
advanced together. Another remarkable fact in this connection is 


EVOLUTION OF MAN — THE VERDICT OF HISTORY. 63 


that excavations in Italy have brought to light scores of finely finished 
surgical instruments for certain operations, which are in almost 
every particular of form like some reinvented in modern times and 
used by the most advanced surgeons of to-day. 

“We are losing all our secrets in this shabby age,” an architect 
recently said. “If we keep on, the time will come when we shall be 
able to do nothing well. 

“Take, for instance, steel. We claim to make good steel, yet 
the blades the Saracens turned out hundreds of years ago would cut 
one of our own blades in two like butter. 


mya 


Lo} 
' : 
4 ; 
j 
i 





Surgical Instruments Used by Roman Physicians Two Thousand 
Years Ago. 


These instruments, exhibited in the Field Museum, Chicago, are as perfect 
as any of the same type in use to-day and point to high development of 
surgical science in the days of the Roman Empire. 


“Take ink. Our modern ink fades in five or ten years to rust 
color; yet the ink of medieval manuscripts is as black and bright 
to-day as it was seven hundred years ago. 

“Take dyes. The beautiful blues and reds and greens of antique 
Oriental rugs have all been lost, while in Egyptian tombs we find 
fabrics dyed thousands of years ago that remain to-day brighter and 
purer in hue than any of our modern fabrics. 

“Take my specialty, buildings. We can’t build as the ancients 
did. The secret of their mortar and cement is lost to us. Their 
mortar and cement were actually harder and more durable than the 
stones they bound together, whereas ours — horrors!” 


64 EVOLUTION OF MAN — THE VERDICT OF HISTORY. 


Turning to America, we find that Dr. Hiram Binghan, assistant 
professor of Latin American history in Yale University, who in 1912 
visited Peru, declares that the oldest remains of Peruvian civiliza- 
tion are the most perfect. He writes: “The pre-Inca remains are 
much more interesting and denote a higher condition of civilization 
than the Inca relics. No marble could be more exquisitely cut. We 
learned that the workmanship of these pre-Inca peoples, preceding 
those whom Pizarro conquered, exceeded in beauty the work of the 
Incas of Pizzarro’s time.” 

So wherever we turn in the world’s history, we find, not progress 
from savage beginnings, but degeneration from an earlier perfection.. 

No one should be misled by the common talk about the stone, 
bronze, and iron ages as if the history of mankind could be arranged 
in such an ascending order. We have all these “ages” in existence 
somewhere in the world to-day. Strangely enough, the explorers of 
Asia Minor found that the bronze age was before the stone age. And 
America had the stone age when Europe had the metal age. 

As to savage races, these are the very opposite of evolution. 
They are races in ruins. The degeneration of the Akkas of Guinea, 
of the Bushmen of South Africa, of the Australian Negroes and the 
Fire Islanders is very great; but these barbarian races, representing 
hundreds of thousands of human creatures, millions of them, are 
a proof of terrible decay. Without Christianity no race has ever 
been observed to rise from savagery to culture. 

There is a distinct tendency towards greater care in the use of 
such words as “primitive” with reference to savage tribes. Bulletin 
No. 63 of the Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institu- 
tion, Washington, published in 1917, contains an argument against 
the evolutionistic view based upon studies of the Indians which 
inhabit Tierra del Fuego, an island near the southern tip of South 
America. It had been contended by leading evolutionists that the 
aborigines of Tierra del Fuego possessed no ideas of religion, and 
therefore religion represented only the result of human evolution. 
More recent research has strengthened the position of the writers 
in the Smithsonian Bulletin. It has now been proved absolutely that 
the natives of the Fire Island not only have a religion, but have 
a system of ceremonies by which the young men and women of the 
tribes are introduced to a knowledge of “relatively high moral 
standards.” Indeed, these natives “have a distinct and persistent 
idea of God,” who is described as all-seeing and omnipresent and 
who is greater than all other gods. The earlier impressions of 
Europeans who visited these “primitive” men are proved to have 
been based upon fallacies and ignorance. 

Savages do not always progress toward civilization. There are 


EVOLUTION OF MAN — THE VERDICT OF HISTORY. 65 


savages in the world to-day; as far backward as history gives us 
a view of the matter there have been savages. Some of these in 
contact with civilized Christian people have progressed toward civil- 
ization. On the other hand, some, the descendants of the most 












































































































































Gone Down or Going Up? 


Evolution says that all human beings were once 
in a savage state like this African warrior. 
A study of history, however, proves that the 
savages are humanity in a state of decay. Look- 
ing at the picture, we must say: “Man has come 
down to this” rather than: “From this we 
have evolved.” 


civilized, have retrogressed toward the savage state. Instances of 
this have occurred even among our own American people; the less 
energetic and less “prosperous” out of some of our best families, 
drifting into mountains and other less populated and less fertile 
sections, have left descendants approximately savages. So far as 


Essays on Evolution. 5 


66 EVOLUTION OF MAN — THE VERDICT OF HISTORY. 


history and archeology can tell, we know absolutely nothing of the 
first savages. Canon Rawlinson says in The Origin of Nations 
(pp. 4.5): — 

“Herodotus (IV, 108) tells us of the Geloni, a Greek people, 
who, having been expelled from the cities on the northern coast of - 
the Euxine, had retired into the interior and there lived in wooden 
huts and spoke a language ‘half Greek, half Scythian.’ By the time 
of Mela this people had become completely barbarous and used the 
skins of those slain by them in battle as coverings for themselves 
and their horses. A gradual degradation of the Greco-Bactrian 
people is apparent in the series of their coins which is extant.” 

The modern Copts are very degraded descendants of the ancient 
Egyptians, and the Romans of Wallachia have fallen away very 
considerably from the level of the Dacian colonists of Trajan. 
Civilization, as is evident from these and various other instances, 
is liable to decay, to avane, to deteriorate, to proceed from bad to 
worse, and in course of time to sink to so low a level that the question 
occurs, “Is it civilization any longer?” 

Where we find a real history of a people, —and such histories 
we have of civilized peoples, — we find clear indications of a Golden 
Age. It is Eden as told in Genesis. A similar history comes to us 
from the early times of the Persian race, as told in the Vendidad. 
Hesiod sang the story of the beginning of history for the Greeks, and 
it began with a Golden Age. The Chinese point backward to their 
early ancestral age as a sort of “first heaven.” Prescott found well- 
matured legends of a Golden Age in Mexico and of a paradise for 
the ancient Peruvians on Titicaca’s shores. 

We hear of ruined cities in Yucatan and New Mexico that 
indicate an age of civilization for each of these lands far back of 
the savage conditions found in them by white men, and vastly 
superior. The aboriginal earthworks scattered over sections of our 
own Southland tell certainly of a civilization exceeding and ante- 
dating the best our fathers found among the Choctaws, Cherokees, 
and Chickasaws. 

In'the Lutheran Church Work and Observer of January 9, 1919, 
an editorial appeared under the caption, “What About Evolution 
Here?” The following is pertinent to the present discussion: — 

“A very illuminating article by Dr. L.T. Townsend appears in 
the December number of the Bible Champion. Its title is, ‘Pre- 
historic Peoples of the Western Continent.’ Dr. Townsend’s conten- 
tion is that the high civilization indicated by the ancient cities 
exhumed in Mexico, Yucatan, and Central America, compared with 
the present inferior civilization of many of the people in the same 
regions at present, is absolute proof against the theory of evolution, 


EVOLUTION OF MAN — THE VERDICT OF HISTORY. 67 


whatever adjectives may be put before the term. Let us quote in 
proof of this position: — 

“<“Of the wonderful prehistoric cities of Mexico much has been 
written, but none too much. Where once were cities having 
a hundred thousand or more inhabitants, adorned with parks, palaces, 
and temples, are now to be seen the outlines only of deserted streets 
and ruins of palaces that had been built and were in ruins long 
before the Aztecs and Toltecs had settled in the country. In Yucatan 
alone there are ruins that were once large and flourishing, where 
now silence reigns; and noblemen who lived in royal palaces have 
given way to half-clothed and half-fed peons living in adobe huts.’ 

“Tt might almost be said, using a colloquialism, that evolution 
was not ‘on its job’ in those countries. If there was evolution of any 
kind, it was obviously evolution downward. This is the question 
we should like to ask: If evolution is the outstanding and dominant 
principle in the world, why is its working not more strikingly dis- 
played both in the past and in the present? There is not one scintilla 
of evidence that animistic and polytheistic peoples have ever risen 
into monotheism by means of purely ‘resident forces.’ When such 
degenerate people have been lifted to a higher level morally and 
religiously, it has always been because they have been touched and 
uplifted by forces outside of themselves; and in every such case it 
has been the Bible and Christianity that have thus lifted them out 
of their pitiful condition. But that is not evolution; it is the adding 
of a supernatural force. In the world of nature and of man there 
is the most tangible and striking evidence of the operation of two 
principles: one is a ceaseless round without progress; the other is 
degeneration. The proof of progressive evolution by means of 
merely resident forces is conspicuous for its absence. 

“Dy. Townsend speaks by the book of the status of affairs in the 
countries named; for he has himself been on the ground, has 
personally examined the ruins, and has made extensive collections 
of relics from the marvelous ancient cities, which furnish indubitable 
evidence of a high civilization in a remote antiquity. In view of 
these things it is useless for certain classes of would-be scientists to 
continue to go along in smug assurance that their evolutionary theory 
has been proved, and that no more is to be said. That is conservatism 
gone to seed; it is not science, which always has its mind open to 
truth and reality.” 

Mr. McCann very properly asks: “Why do the Haeckelites of 
this generation resort to a rowboat load of mutilated skull-caps, 
fragments of thigh-bones and grossly defective skeletal remnants to 
support their theory of an ascending evolution from the ape when 
here, now, alive in the world, they find countless millions of over- 


68 EVOLUTION OF MAN — THE VERDICT OF HISTORY. 


whelming proofs of universal degeneration from the ideal primitive 
described in the word: ‘And God created man in His own image; 
in the image of God created He him’ ?” 

Where to-day is the Hindu race that could build the Taj Mahal? 

Dr. Patterson asks: “What Greek race to-day could reproduce 
the architecture or statuary of their ancestors? The ruins of all 
Eastern and many Western lands point to fallen races as well as 
ruined structures. The world’s history is that of the fall of great 
nations, such as Egypt, Babylonia, Greece, Rome, in all of which 
are sad examples of architecture and peoples alike in decay.” 

What overwhelming proof of decay of human intelligence is 
told in the lecture of Wendell Phillips, “The Lost Arts”! Consider 
the marvels of the engineer’s art as told by Phillips: “You may 
visit Dr. Abbot’s museum, where you will see the ring of Cheops, 
the pyramid builder. The signet of the ring is about the size of 
a quarter of a dollar, and the engraving is invisible without the aid 
of a glass. No man was ever shown into the cabinets of gems in 
Italy without being furnished with a microscope to look at them. 
It would be idle for him to look at them without one. He couldn’t 
appreciate the delicate lines and the expression of the faces. If you 
go to Parma, they will show you a gem once worn on the finger of 
Michelangelo, of which the engraving is two thousand years old, on 
which there are the figures of seven women. You must have the 
aid of a glass in order to distinguish the forms at all.... Layard 
says he would be unable to read the engravings at Nineveh without 
strong spectacles; they are so extremely small. Rawlinson brought 
home a stone about twenty inches long and ten wide, containing an 
entire treatise on mathematics. It would be perfectly illegible 
without glasses. Now, if we are unable to read it without the aid 
of glasses, you may suppose the man who engraved it had pretty 
strong spectacles. So the microscope, instead of dating from our 
time, finds its brothers in the Books of Moses.” 

As a matter of fact, evolutionists admit that there has been no 
change whatever in the human race during the past thirty thousand 
years. As Dr. Sayce says: “The whole application of a supposed law 
of evolution to the history of the ancient Oriental world is founded 
on what we now know to have been a huge mistake. The Mosaic age, 
instead of coming at the dawn of ancient Oriental culture, really 
belongs to the evening of its decay. The Hebrew legislator was 
surrounded on all sides by the influences of a decadent civilization.” 

And so we might proceed indefinitely, showing that the first and 
oldest Gothic cathedrals, those at Amiens and Rouen, were never 
surpassed; that no epic poetry has ever been written that surpassed 
the earliest epic poems, those of Homer. Conversely, the Koran, or 


“HOW OLD IS MAN?” 69 


Bible of the Mohammedans, is centuries later than the New Testa- 
ment, hence ought to be a great improvement on it, and the Book of 
Mormon on the Koran, and Mrs. Mary Baker Patterson Eddy Frye’s 
text-book of Christian Science a vast improvement again on the 
Book of Mormon. As a matter of fact there is so great a deteriora- 
tion in these manufactured religions that one might aptly say that 
even the devil is degenerating. 

How, in view of the degeneration observable in human history, 
serious students can still maintain that there is evidence of an 
evolution from lower to higher forms of civilization, under natural 
law, passes comprehension. There can be no statement more directly 
opposed to the facts of history than the claim of Professor Conklin 
of Princeton, who says that “everything goes to show that evolution 
has always been progressive.” Everything goes to show the very 
opposite. 


9. ‘“How Old Is Man??’’ 


The antiquity of man is discussed in an article contributed by 
Theodore Roosevelt to the National Geographic Magazine.1) The 
article purports to give a brief summary of that which has been 
ascertained by anthropological science in answer to the question, 
“How old is man?’ and by reason of the distinguished name of its 
author has received wide attention. Mr. Roosevelt intends to trace 
the prehistory of man, “the history of his development from an ape- 
like creature struggling with his fellow-brutes.” He refers to a past 
geologic age, when “man was slowly developing from the half-human 
to the wholly human,” “from a strong and cunning brute into a man 
having dominion over all brutes, and kinship with worlds lying 
outside and beyond our own,” and intends to summarize “all that 
has been discovered and soundly determined” since Darwin wrote 
his Descent of Man. Mr. Roosevelt refers with undisguised disdain 
to those who once “disbelieved in the antiquity of man,” and his 
article leaves no doubt in the reader’s mind that in the opinion of 
Mr. Roosevelt this disbelief in the evolutionistic thesis concerning 
the origin and ancestry of man has been amply proved unfounded 
by the facts. His assertions are made with a calm emphasis, which 
cannot fail to impress the unsophisticated reader. We are invited 
to consider “man as he was up to the end of paleolithic times.” “The 
records show that man has lived in France for at least 100,000 years.” 

_ The illustrations which accompany the article add to the impres- 
sion that the question, “How old is man?” may now be answered 


1) February, 1916: “How Old Is Man?” 


70 “HOW OLD IS MAN?” 


with the testimony of well-established scientific proof; for have we 
not here the “Ape-man of Java, a Prehuman Creature, Who Lived 
Probably 500,000 Years Ago”? Have we not a head reconstructed 
on the Piltdown Skull? Do we not observe the trend towards the 
human in the reconstructed Neanderthal Man on page 1202 Does 
not a half-tone on page 124 show this same Neanderthal Man 
chipping a piece of flint into arrow-heads, and the Cro-Magnon Man 
in the act of drawing a bison on the wall of his cave? The unavoid- 
able impression is conveyed that we are moving along lines well 
established by scientific research, and that it is no longer “necessary 
to argue with those who disbelieve the antiquity of man.” It is with 
this latter presumption that we intend to deal in our discussion of 
Mr. Roosevelt’s article. Frankly, we disbelieve the antiquity of man, 
and it is our purpose to show that Mr. Roosevelt has, in his discussion 
of the question, “How old is man?” introduced no facts which have 
caused us to waver in our adherence to the record in Genesis, and, 
furthermore, that the distinguished contributor to the National 
Geographic Magazine has withheld from his readers certain facts, 
which, if presented, would have materially depressed the interest of 
the public in his conclusions. 

Mr. Roosevelt’s article is, in substance, a résumé of Mr. Henry 
F. Osborn’s book Men of the Old Stone Age, which, in his opinion, 
sums up the assured results of research and constitutes the unani- 
mous consensus of scholarship. Is Mr. Roosevelt right in both these 
assumptions? Only when the question is approached: Whence did 
these various forms of ape-man originate, and how are they related 
to one another and to recent man? does the author caution his 
readers that here Mr. Osborn “states his conclusions as strong prob- 
abilities, not certainties.” But this closing paragraph of Mr. Roose- 
velt’s article serves the purpose of deepening the impression that. 
all that has been said about the nature and antiquity of the fossil 
remains in the preceding paragraphs is based upon the unques- 
tioned and unanimous agreement of scholarship. Again we ask, Is 
Mr. Roosevelt justified in this initial assumption? The question can 
best be answered by taking up seriatim the evidence adduced for 
the evolutionistic view of human origins. 


Pithecanthropus Erectus. 


Pithecanthropus Erectus is the name invented by Haeckel for 
the “missing link” and given by Dr. Eugene Du Bois, a Dutch 
physician, to certain remains discovered by him on the island of 
Java in 1891. The remains consist of “an imperfect cranium, 
a femur bearing evidence of prolonged disease, and a molar tooth.” 
(Dana, Manual of Geology, p.1036.) The discoverer of these bones 


“HOW OLD IS MAN?” Wal 


asserts that he found them in Pleistocene deposits, and believes that 
they are the remains of a being between the man-apes and man. 
Prof. Virchow and other specialists in anatomy examined this find. 
It was established that the femur was found a year after the cranium. 
The Encyclopedia Britannica (Vol. XXII, p. 336) describes the skull 
as follows: “The forehead is extremely low, with beetling brow- 
ridges, and the whole calvarium presents a curiously gibbon-like 
aspect.” Some regard the remains as belonging to a low-grade man 
or to an idiot. (Dana, l.c.) The cubic measurement of the skull is 
60 cubic inches, about that of an idiot, that of a normal man being 
90 cubic inches and that of an ape 30. These specimens were found 
in separate places. The skull is too small for the thigh-bone. The 
age of the strata in which they were found is uncertain. The assump- 
tions on which the claims made for these bones are based are the 
following: First, that they are as old as claimed, 100,000 years at 
least, or a million, as stated by some. Secondly, that these bones 
belong to the same individual. Thirdly, that they are the remains 
of a full-grown individual. Fourthly, that they are the remains of 
a human or semihuman being. An authority of the first rank, 
Prof. Klaatsch, of Heidelberg University, says that the savants may 
be right in inferring from the fragmental Javan remains that they 
belong either to the most manlike of apes or the most apelike of men, 
but that the creature does not supply the missing link in a pedigree 
beginning in a simian and ending in homo sapiens. 

Upon such a floating foundation of scientific surmise Mr. Roose- 
velt presumes to build a very substantial structure. He says: After 
the prehuman days of man, probably branching off from the stem of 
the anthropoid apes, comes “the famous ape-man of Java, the pithe- 
canthropus, the prehuman creature,— probably, however, only col- 
laterally in our line of ancestry, — who appeared at the dawn of the 
Pleistocene. This being was already half-way upward from the 
beast, half-way between true man and those Miocene ancestors of 
his who were still on the psychic and intellectual level of their 
diverging kinsfolk, the anthropoid apes. He, or some creature like 
him, was in our own line of ascent during the uncounted ages when 
our ancestors were already different from all other brutes and yet 
had not grown to be really men. He probably used a stone or club 
at need and about this time may have begun very rudely to chip or 
otherwise fashion stones to his use.” All this detail concerning the 
pithecanthropus from its Miocene “ancestors” to its rudely fashioned 
tools is purely the product of imagination, starting from three o 
four broken bones and the evolutionary theory. We have not seen 
Mr. Osborn’s book, upon which Mr. Roosevelt relies for his facts. 
Possibly it treats the pithecanthropus as an ancestor in the direct line 


LA 
(he 


13 “HOW OLD IS MAN?” 


of the descent of man. If it does, the author stands alone among 
modern scientists, who are substantially agreed with Dr. Klaatsch 
that the being of which Du Bois discovered the remains is not 
“probably,” but most certainly, outside the direct line of human 
descent. These bones, then, have no place in a discussion of the 
question, “How old is man?” 2) 


The Piltdown Skull. 


“After the ape-man of Java,” continues Mr. Roosevelt, “we skip 
a quarter of a million years or so— according to Mr. Osborn’s con- 
servative figuring — before we get our next glimpse of a near-human 





(c) Am. Museum of Nat’l History 


(c) Am. Museum of Nat’l History 


The Restored Skull of the The Piltdown “Skull.” 


“Java Ape Man.” 


The black portion of this and the 
other “skull” on this page is said 
to denote the part that was origi- 
nally found. The rest is the sculp- 
tor’s imagination, and the whole 
thing is one of the “scientific” 
hoaxes of the present day. Ques- 
tion: Where are these Du Bois 
bones, and why are they kept from 
every possible inspection? 


To show that this was the “miss- 
ing link,” this skull-bone was built 
up with a brain-chamber of 1,070 
cubic centimeters, half-way be- 
tween man and monkey. Dr. Ed- 
ward Keith, English anatomical 
expert, found, however, that the 
brain capacity must have been at 
least 50 per cent. larger, so that 
the Piltdown Man had a larger 
brain-chamber than the average 
man to-day. 


predecessor of ours. This is the Heidelberg Man, who lived in the 
warm second interglacial period, surrounded by a fauna of huge and 
fearsome beasts, which included the saber-tooth and the hippo- 
potamus, etc. He was a chinless being, whose jaw was still so 


2) To build upon such slight evidence a theory of human descent is 
hazardous also in view of the fact that the evidence of bones and other 
remains is now generally suspected. It has been found that even in the 
case of recent remains, as in criminal trials, experts are often unable to 
decide whether they are human or brute, recent or remote, and what part 
of the frame they occupied. 


“HOW OLD IS MAN?” 73 


primitive that it must have made his speech imperfect; and he was 
so much lower than any existing savage as to be at least specifically 
distinct; that is, he can be called ‘human’ only if the word is used 
with a certain largeness. Again we make a long skip, this time of 
somewhat over a hundred thousand years, and come to the Piltdown 
Man, or near-man—a being seemingly little more advanced than 
the man of Heidelberg, and in some ways less so, for he possessed 
apelike canine teeth.” In a burst of confidence the author then 
admits that there is room for “considerable difference of opinion” 
regarding the age of these “very early near-human remains” and their 
exact relation to the human race; yet this admission, if anything, 
deepens the impression that as to the near-human characteristics of 
all these remains and their significance as evidence of brute ancestor- 
ship of man there can be no manner of doubt. What are the facts? 

Mr. Roosevelt, on page 119, shows a reproduction of the Piltdown 
Man, “believed to have lived in England and France 100,000 to 
300,000 years ago.” ‘The wide disparity of these estimates. of an- 
tiquity should in themselves bid one pause before one accepts the 
very unprepossessing creature depicted here as an ancestor of man. 
Our faith in this reconstruction is yet more rudely shaken when the 
testimony of Dr. Arthur Keith, the anatomical expert of the Royal 
College of Surgeons of England, is heard. It is true that Dr. Smith 
Woodward and Dr. Charles Dawson, in reconstructing a man from 
the Piltdown 8) skull, built up something essentially monkey-like, with 
receding forehead, projecting brows, and a gorilla-like lower jaw. 
Professor Keith, checking up on this reconstruction, comes to an 
entirely different conclusion. He finds that the work of Drs. Dawson 
and Woodward was done in open defiance of all that the scientists 
know about skulls, whether ancient or modern. He writes: — 

“That the Piltdown find is the most important discovery of its 
kind ever made will be freely granted by all who have inquired into 
man’s ancient history. 

“Nothing can detract from the debt which we owe to Charles 
Dawson and Dr. Smith Woodward on this score. It was natural that 
they should be influenced by the beliefs of the time. The evidence as 
regards antiquity of the Piltdown race pointed, in their opinions, to 
a very early phase of the Pleistocene period. It was the date at 
which man should still be struggling toward a human form, if the 
accepted opinion was well founded. 

“Tn the chin region of the lower jaw of the Piltdown skull the 
discoverers found that the characters were absolutely apelike, abso- 





3) Discovered in 1912 on Piltdown Common, near Ucksfield, Sussex, 
England. 


74 “HOW OLD IS MAN?” 


lutely unhuman. The characters of the chin dominated their work 
when they came to fit the parts of the skull together; so certain were 
they that they had found a real intermediate stage between ape and 
man that they abandoned all the precepts of the ordinary anatomist. 
It was recognized that all the parts of the skull, barring their massive 
thickness, had the same characters as modern man, only the chin 
was different. In the skull, eventually reconstructed, representing 
the form of man’s head in the early Pleistocene, one could recognize 
a mixture of features, recalling a microcephalic idiot’s skull on the 
one hand and a chimpanzee’s on the other. 

“This hybrid skull was received with open arms by the orthodox 
anthropologists. They were comforted to know that their beliefs 
had been well founded, even if their early-Pleistocene ancestors 
proved to be but half an ape. As for myself, it was necessary to 
examine again my facts, inferences, and beliefs, and see how they 
could be fitted to meet the evidence yielded by Piltdown; for at first 
I accepted implicitly the skull reconstructed. 

“Until Mr. Dawson’s discovery I was certain we had followed 
the modern man back beyond the middle of the Pleistocene, and on 
other evidence had postulated that long before the dawn of the 
Pleistocene period it would be found that man had attained a full- 
sized brain. There were also the important discoveries of Benjamin 
Harrison and J. Reid Moir. They had found flints which had been 
shaped by the hand of man before the middle of the Pliocene period. 

“Matters had reached this stage when I returned from a glorious 
golfing holiday in Cornwall early in the summer of the present year. 
On my return I found waiting me excellent casts of the various 
fragments of the Piltdown skull, which had been prepared by F. O. 
Barlow. Sitting down to mark out these Piltdown fragments on 
a modern skull in order that visitors to the museum of the Royal 
College of Surgeons might quickly perceive how they differed from 
the corresponding parts of modern man, I was surprised to find that 
the area of the ancient parts was much larger than their modern 
representatives. I also observed that the squamosal— the bone which 
forms the side of the skull between the ear and the forehead — was 
much larger than in modern skulls. 

“That was altogether unexpected, as in all ancient skulls, espe- 
cially skulls of the Neanderthal race, this bone is particularly small. 
My curiosity was aroused. I soon saw that the parts of the recon- 
structed Piltdown skull had been apposed in a manner which was 
in open defiance of all that was known of skulls ancient and modern, 
human and anthropoid. Articulating the bones in a manner which 
has been accepted by all anatomists in all times, I found that the 
brain-chamber, instead of measuring 1,070 cubic cm., as in Dr. Smith 


“HOW OLD IS MAN?” 75 


Woodward’s reconstruction, measured 1,500 cubic em.—a _ large 
brain-chamber for even modern man. 

“Comparing the impressions left by the convolutions of the brain 
on the Piltdown skull with those on a modern skull, I found a close 
correspondence. It was then apparent a very great mistake had 
been made; the ancient man of Piltdown had a brain as big as 
modern man.” 

Until the controversy has been settled by the scientists now at 
loggerheads over the Piltdown skull, no one should pass off one of 
the several “reconstructions” of the Piltdown Man with an air of 
scientific finality, as was done by Mr. Roosevelt in the National 
Geographic Magazine. An honest presentation of the facts would 
not have ignored the wide divergency in the opinions of Drs. Wood- 
ward and Dawson, and Dr. Keith, and the controversy which the 
disagreement of these leaders has called forth. The statement that 
there is “room for considerable difference of opinion” as to the age 
of these specimens and their relation to human ancestry does not 
touch the matter which concerns us here. The impression is left by 
Mr. Roosevelt’s article that, whatever the age of these fossils, and 
whatever their relationship to our race, the reconstructions based 
upon them,— with “primitive jaw,” “chinless being,” “lower than 
any existing savage,” etc., —are the unquestioned result of scientific 
research. They are not. Until the leading authorities have settled 
their dispute concerning the appearance of the man of Piltdown, that 
specimen must be ruled out, even on scientific grounds, as evidence 
pointing to the descent of man from animal ancestors. 


The Neanderthal Man. 


Mr. Roosevelt discusses the Neanderthal Man, next in line of 
“prehuman predecessors of ours,” with a wealth of detail which 
argues close acquaintanceship. He writes: “These Neanderthal men 
were squat, burly, thick-skulled savages, with brows projecting over 
cavernous eyes, knees permanently bent, and jaws almost chinless. 
Their brains were of good size, but the portions which represented 
the higher intellectual attainments were poorly developed.... They 
were a low race of men, distinctly human, but far nearer the beast 
than any existing race.” More detail is added regarding the fashion- 
ing of tools, their hunting-grounds, and cavern-life. Again we ask, 
What basis of fact underlies these confident assertions? 

The Neanderthal skull was found in 1856, in the neighborhood 
of Duesseldorf, by Dr. Fuhlrott, of Elberfeld. When the skull and 
other parts of the skeleton were exhibited at a scientific meeting 
held at Bonn the same year, a wide divergence of opinion at once 
developed among the specialists. By some, doubts were expressed as 


76 “HOW OLD IS MAN?” 


to the human character of the remains. Others held that the remains 
indicated a person of much the same stature as a European of the 
present day, but with such an unusual thickness in some of them 
as betokened a being of very extraordinary strength. Dr. Meyer, of 
Bonn, regarded the skull as the remains of a Cossack killed in 1814! 
Other scientists agreed with him. Modern Science accepts the 
antiquity of the Neanderthal Man, but the controversy has never 
ceased. Mr. Roosevelt admits that Darwin practically ignored this 
discovery, “though it was exactly the ‘missing link’ he hoped to find.” 
The great Virchow declared the peculiarities of the bones to be the 
result of disease. Mr. Roosevelt chides Virchow for his “wrong- 
headed insistence, which delayed for a full generation the full under- 
standing of its importance.” However, when, following Osborn, 
Mr. Roosevelt terms the Neanderthal race “distinctly human,” 
“human beings” (p.125), he is not supported by Schwalbe, who in 
his standard work on the subject (Der Neanderthalschaedel, 1901) 
says that this species, though extremely ancient, is “distinctly not 
human” — “ist ausserhalb der Variationsbreite des Menschen,‘) weil 
er eine groessere Anzahl von Merkmalen aufweist, die keine der 
ausgestorbenen oder jetzt lebenden Rassen des Homo sapiens besitzen. 
Er ist eine besondere Art,” a distinct, independent species. In the 
article “Mensch” in Meyer’s Konversationslexikon the man of Nean- 
derthal and Krapina (referred to hereafter) is called a type quite 
divergent from recent man—“ein Typus, der von dem rezenten 
Menschen durchaus abweicht.” An authority on organic evolution, 
Professor Cope, thinks that the Neanderthal specimens are specifically 
different from Homo sapiens, because the Neanderthal skull “has 
a smaller brain-cavity, a retreating forehead, and also a retreating 
chin.” He thinks the Pithecanthropus of Du Bois “may go with 
Homo Neanderthalensis, though its chin is not known.” 5) Here it 
should be stated that an entire group of scientists believes, on the 
evidence of the Piltdown skull, that the prehistoric race from which 
we are descended never became so bestial as the possessors of the 
skulls found at Neanderthal, at Spy in Belgium, and La Chapelle- 
aux-Saints in France are believed to have been, and that the latter 


4) “Beyond the range of the variability of the human type.” 

5) In other words, Mr. Cope, unquestionably a man competent to speak 
on matters concerning speculative science, believes that the Pithecanthro- 
pus and the Neanderthal Man might well have been coeval. According 
to Mr. Roosevelt’s authorities, they were separated by a chasm of at least 
350,000 years, “conservatively figured.” How may any one speak with such 
assurance as Mr. Roosevelt when leading theorizers are so far apart in their 
estimates? (See Cope, The Primary Factors of Organic Evolution, Open 
Court Publishing Co., 1896.) 


“HOW OLD IS MAN?” iT 


belonged to a branch of the race which gradually degenerated, until 
it finally became extinct, while the other and superior branch kept 
on improving until man as we know him gradually developed. 

However, the “bestial” character of the Neanderthal remains 
is by no means admitted on every hand. Near Liége, in Belgium, 
not more than seventy miles from the Neanderthal, the Engis skull 
was found. After careful measurements it was proved not to differ 
materially from skulls of modern Europeans. This fact should 
prevent us from making any assertions respecting the primitive 
character, in race or physical conformation, of these cave-dwellers. 
Indeed, Professor Huxley, in a very careful and elaborate paper upon 
the Neanderthal and Engis skulls, places an average skull of a modern 
native of Australia about half-way between those of the Neanderthal 
and Engis caves. Yes, he says that, after going through a large 
collection of Australian skulls, he “found it possible to select from 
these crania two (connected by all sorts of intermediate gradations), 
the one of which should very nearly resemble the Engis skull, while 
the other would somewhat less closely approximate to the Neander- 
thal skull in size, form, and proportions.” And yet, as regards blood, 
customs, or language, the natives of Southern and Western Australia 
are probably as pure as any race of savages in existence. In fact, 
it would, no doubt, be possible to find in Europe or America among 
persons of abnormal underdevelopment, such as idiots, skulls of 
a formation which would match that of the Neanderthal.6) “The 
Engis skull, perhaps the oldest known, is,” according to Professor 
Huxley, “a fair average skull, which might have belonged to a phil- 
osopher, or might have contained the thoughtless brain of a savage.” 
In this opinion Mr. Huxley is supported by one of the greatest 
anthropologists of his time, Daniel G. Brinton, who says concerning 
the cave-men of France and Belgium: “Neither in stature, cranial 
capacity, nor in muscular development did these earliest members 
of the species differ more from those now living than do these among 
themselves. We have no grounds for assigning to these earliest 
known men an inferior brain or a lower intelligence than is seen 
among various savage tribes still in existence.” 7) 

Confusion has become worse confounded since Professor Gor- 
janovic-Kramberger, of Agram, found the remains of ten prehistoric 
individuals in Krapina cave in Croatia, Austria. Professors Schwalbe 
and Klaatsch produced facts which “prove positively” that the 
Krapina skull is of a type much lower than the lowest human skull 
of to-day and represents a creature separated from the man of to-day 


6) Keary, The Dawn of History, p. 8. 
7) Universal Encyclopedia, VII, p. 470. 


78 “HOW OLD IS MAN?” 


by a far greater difference than was the difference between him and 
the ape. Dr. Hagen writes: “Our organs of speech, particularly the 
tongue, are governed by a group of muscles which are fastened to 
a little double-pointed growth of bone on the inside of the chin. In 
the anthropoid ape, who lacks the power of articulate speech, we find 
a groove in that place instead of a growth of bone. That same groove 
we find in the man of Krapina.” But there is still a difference of 
opinion concerning several very important points. The Belgian 
scientist Fraipont believed that the Krapina skeletons showed that 
this man could not walk upright, or at least did not walk upright 
habitually. Other scientists say that the study of the bones does 
not justify this opinion. The teeth of the skulls found at Krapina 
are of immense size, greater even than those of the ape, and in some 
respects differing from the dentition of modern man. ‘These 
divergencies have convinced the scientists that, whatever the age of 
the Krapina specimens, they do not constitute the “missing link” 
between the brutes and man. “Their facial features were certainly 
animal-like, being even behind the ape in the absence of forehead 
and chin. The conclusion that this creature was not merely dif- 
ferent from recent man in kind, but actually different in species, is 
unescapable.” 
Has the Missing Link been Found? 

In all this we note a truly formidable conflict of first-class 
authorities. Mr. Osborn, whom Mr. Roosevelt follows, pronounces 
the Neanderthal Man “distinctly human,” “human beings.” Schwalbe, 
the greatest specialist in this field of research, says: “This species 
is distinctly outside the field of human variability; it is essentially 
a distinct species.” In this, Schwalbe has the support of the pro- 
fessional evolutionist Cope. Yet Cope would have the Neanderthal 
Man go with Pithecanthropus, whom Roosevelt makes 350,000 years 
(“conservatively figured”) older than the Neanderthaler. Others 
hold that the latter is a degenerate type of man. Huxley says it 
resembles the skull of some Australians in size, form, and propor- 
tions, and in this he is supported by Brinton. Others again classify 
the Neanderthal remains with the Krapina specimens, which, how- 
ever, differ in the immensely important factor of dentition from 
modern man, and must, “by unescapable conclusion,” be regarded 
specimens of a creature radically different from recent man. How, 
in view of this clashing of opinions, can Mr. Roosevelt say that he 
is presenting a summary “of all that has been discovered and soundly 
determined”? He calls the Neanderthal Man the “missing link.” 
“Not our ancestor,” “savages lower than any existing human type,” 8) 


8) This in flat contradiction to the opinion of Huxley and Brinton, 
above quoted. 


“HOW OLD IS MAN?” 79 


yet “exactly the missing link which Darwin hoped to find” (p. 125). 
How does this square with contemporary scientific opinion? No one 
can read Mr. Roosevelt’s article and escape the impression that not 
only one, but many missing links have been found. There is an 
outline of development from the Pithecanthropus through Piltdown 
and Neanderthal to the ancestors of Homo sapiens. Let us ask: 
What basis is there for the assumption that these missing links have 
been found, that the genealogy of man has been traced? 

The unanimous opinion of evolutionistic science is that none of 
the remains found in so-called Tertiary deposits, in the Pliocene, 
or even in the Pleistocene strata of the Quarternary age, supply 
the missing link in the evolution of man from the brute. These 
fossil remains are either plainly related to the brute, as when the 
bony process in the lower jaw, which is necessary for the growth of 
a human tongue, is missing, or they are quite evidently the remains 
of men that differed in no essential from recent man, Homo sapiens. 
The link that connects the two has not been found. This is the 
verdict of science. 


Dr. Beck says in Der Naturmensch, Vol. IIT, p. 53: “The presence 
of man in the Tertiary period is not sustained by the facts.” Alfred 
Russell Wallace, cooriginator with Darwin of the “Darwinian theory,” 
quotes Huxley as follows in his book Darwinism:9) “In conclusion 
I may say that the fossil remains of man hitherto discovered do not 
seem to me to take us appreciably nearer to that lower pithecoid 
form, by the modifications of which he has probably become what 
he is.” “Certain California remains of Pliocene man,” Wallace 
continues, “give no indication of a specially low form of man; and 
it remains an unsolved problem why no traces of the long line of 
man’s ancestors, back to the remote period when he first branched 
off from the pithecoid type, have yet been discovered.” On another 
page Wallace again expresses his wonderment at the fact that there 
is a “complete absence of human or prehuman remains in all those 
deposits which have furnished in such rich abundance the remains 
of other land-animals.” (Darwinism, p.309.) Wallace refers to the 
Pliocene period, the same age of which Mr. Roosevelt so confidently 
asserts that during this time “developed the primates, from which 
came the monkeys, the anthropoid apes, and finally the half-human 
predecessors of man himself.” Where is the proof? The statement 
is unsupported by a shred of tangible evidence. Speaking of the 
oldest skulls, Wallace says: “What is still more extraordinary, the 
few remains yet known of prehistoric man do not indicate any 


9) 1889, p. 307. 


80 “HOW OLD IS MAN?” 


material diminution in the size of the brain-case.” 10) The latest 
- finds substantiate this opinion. Mr. Roosevelt makes no reference to 
the human skeleton found in the African Pleistocene, the Oldoway 
Man. This remarkable fossil was found in the Oldoway gulch in 
northern German East Africa, in 1913, by an expedition of the 
Geological Institute of the University of Berlin. The remains con- 
sist of a complete skeleton, which was found deeply imbedded in 
firm tufa. Unquestionably ancient as these remains are, — the bones 
are completely fossilized,—they have contained lamentably “few 
primitive characteristics” and hence have not been exploited in the 
interest of the evolutionary theory. A fragment of skull, a tooth, 
a thigh-bone, offer much more inviting fields to the evolutionist, 
since they permit his imagination to range without the restraint of 
fact. The Oldoway fossil, which is in every essential respect 
a normal human skeleton, possesses no special attractions for those 
who would represent man as a descendant of brutish ancestors. 
Says Professor Virchow:!) “We seek in vain for the missing 
link. There exists a definite barrier separating man from the animal 
which has not yet been effaced — heredity, which transmits to chil- 
dren the faculties of the parents. We have never seen a monkey 
bring a man into the world nor a man produce a monkey. All men 
having a Simian appearance are simply pathological variants. It 
was generally believed a few years ago that there existed a few human 
races which still remained in the primitive inferior condition of 
their organization. But all these races have been objects of minute 
investigation, and we know that they have an organization like ours, 
often, indeed, superior to that of the supposed higher races. Thus 
the Eskimo head and the head of the Tierra del Fuegians belong 
to the perfected types.” “All the researches undertaken with the 
aim of finding continuity in progressive development have been 
without result. There exists no proanthrope, no man-monkey, and 
the ‘connecting link’ remains a phantom.” Dr. Berndt, of Berlin, 
says in a recent contribution to a scientific journal: “Since 
Dr. Dubois’s Pithecanthropus Erectus, once so far famed, must 
without question now be excluded from the direct genealogy of man, 
at least of European man, we must admit that there is no link which 
really bridges the chasm between the manlike animals (as, e. g., the 
living chimpanzee and the fossil Pliopithecus, the Dryopithecus, and 
others) and even the most primitive men (as, e. g., the Australian of 


10) This, as has been shown by the cubic measurements quoted above, 
applies even to the Javan specimen of Dr. Dubois. 

11) Quoted by Fairhurst, Organic Evolution Considered; Standard 
Press, 1913. 


“HOW OLD IS MAN?” 81 


to-day or the prognathous of the Ice age, the Neanderthal or 
Heidelberg Man).” 12) It had been suggested by some that in the 
Dryopithecus Darwini, referred to by Dr. Berndt, a fossil ancestor 
of man had been found. However, also this hope of the evolutionists 
has been dashed. The Enclycopedia Britannica says:18) “It has been 
suggested that it is clearly related to man, but this idea is dis- 
countenanced by the great relative length of the muzzle and the 
small space for the tongue.” Thus every new find, upon investiga- 
tion, proves the truth of Virchow’s words: “We must really acknowl- 
edge that there is a complete absence of any fossil type of a lower 
stage in the development of man. Nay, if we gather together all the 
fossil men hitherto found and put them parallel with those of the 
present time, we can decidedly pronounce that there are among 
living men a much greater proportion of individuals who show 
a relatively inferior type than there are among the fossils known up 
to this time.... Every positive progress which we have made in the 
region of prehistoric anthropology has removed us farther from the 
demonstration of this theory.” Not one of these loudly heralded 
missing links has stood the test of scientific investigation, but has 
either been recognized as undoubtedly Simian in character or has 
been ranged by competent anthropologists with some existing human 
type. There is so far not a scintilla of evidence for the evolution of 
man from the beast, of which Mr. Roosevelt so glibly speaks: “The 
evolution of man from a strong and cunning brute into a being 
having dominion,” ete. 


The Cro-Magnon Race. 


According to the view adopted by Mr. Roosevelt, the Nean- 
derthal race died out, and “these savages, lower than any existing 
type, were supplanted by the tall, finely built Cro-Magnon race of 
hunters, who ... belonged to the same species of man that we do — 
Homo sapiens.” He believes that an interval of at least 25,000 years 
separated the immigration of the Cro-Magnon race from the appear- 
ance of the Neanderthal race. Once more we ask, What are the 
ascertained facts which underlie these definite assertions? 

So much is true that in certain caves in France the remains 
of an earlier race of inhabitants have been found, mixed with bones 


12) Naturwissenschaftliche Rundschau der Chemikerzeitung, April, 
1914, .This very recent testimony is interesting also for its assigning of 
true human characteristics (with Huxley, Brinton, Wallace) to so-called 
Pleistocene remains, such as the Neanderthaler, whom Mr. Roosevelt classes 
with the half-beasts. 

13) Vol. XXII, p. 336. 


Essays on Evolution. 6 


82 “HOW OLD IS MAN?” 


of land-animals now extinct. Also, on the walls of these caves and 
on stones and bones these cave-dwellers engraved with no mean skill 
outline drawings of bisons, reindeer, mammoth, horses, and the like. 
Beyond these unquestioned facts we again move in a maze of con- 
tradictory opinion, of which the National Geographic article once 
more contains no hint. According to the article on Caves in the 
Encyclopedia Britannica the skeletons found in these French caves 
are not the remains of the artists whose work was found in the same 
chambers; yet, according to Mr. Roosevelt’s article, just this is the 
case. It was at one time supposed that these cave-men had well- 
developed animal characteristics. This idea is now given up, and 
instead of assigning to them an age of 100,000 years, as did Schmer- 
ling and many others, most anthropologists are satisfied with a period 
of 12,000 to 15,000 years, though some remains found in French 
caves were by Spring and Buckland regarded as no more than 4,000 
years old. Indeed, drawings of human features have recently been 
found in the cave of La Colombiere, which in no wise resemble the 
traditional cave-man physiognomy. They are described as follows: 
“The head is large, the forehead round and prominent, rising slightly 
obliquely. The face is long and is distinctly projected forward; 
the chin is prominent, the nose long and very thick.” When the 
drawings of animals made by these cave-dwellers are pronounced 
intensely realistic by all who have seen them, are we not permitted 
to conclude that the features of human beings portrayed in these 
caverns come close to the general appearance of men in that remote 
age? Yet the features described by Messrs. Mayet and Pissot (1913) 
can be duplicated a thousand times on a walk down Broadway. 
There is not a trace of the animal in the drawings which they show 
in facsimile. 

Mr. Roosevelt refers especially to the Cro-Magnon Man and 
supplies an illustration showing him in his cave in the act of drawing 
a bison on the wall. The Cro-Magnon Man is described in the article 
as a race of hunters, “who in intelligence evidently ranked high.” 
Yet competent investigators have held that the Neanderthal Man 
and the Heidelberg Man, which Mr. Roosevelt classes with the brute- 
links in the descent of man, were of the same race as the French 
cave-dwellers. In his lectures on “Nature and the Bible” Dr. J. W. 
Dawson, the well-known geologist and principal of McGill University, 
classes the Cro-Magnon, the Engis, and the Neanderthal skulls as 
“Paleocosmic skulls.” Of the Cro-Magnon cave remains he says: 
“The brain-case is very long, more so than in ordinary modern skulls, 
and this length is accompanied with a great breadth, so that the 
brain was of greater size than in average modern man; and the 
frontal region was large and well developed. In this respect this 


“HOW OLD IS MAN?” 83 


most ancient skull fails utterly to vindicate the expectations of those 
who would regard prehistoric men as approaching the apes.... The 
celebrated Engis skull, believed to have belonged to a contemporary 
of the mammoth, is also precisely of the same type, though less 
massive than that of Cro-Magnon; and lastly, even the somewhat 
degraded Neanderthal skull, though inferior in frontal development, 
is referable to the same long-headed style of man, in so far as can 
be judged from the portion that remains. Let it be observed that 
these skulls are probably the oldest known in the world, and they 
are all referable to one race of men.’ 14) This opinion of Dawson, 
who was an expert craniologist, surely outweighs that of an amateur, 
who merely sums up the theories of one group of scientists and passes 
them off on the public as “soundly determined” fact. Indeed, 
Quatrefages, the great French anthropologist, believes that the 
Cro-Magnon people were of the same stock as the large-limbed and 
shapely Kabyles (Berbers) of modern Mauritania! Virchow says: 
“The old troglodytes, pile-villagers, and bog-people prove to be quite 
respectable society. They have heads so large that many living 
people would be only too happy to possess them.” 15) And Le Conte 
cites the French authority on cave-men, M. Lartet, concerning the 
skeletons found in the Aurignac cave to this effect: “This was 
formerly a family or tribal burial-place; in the cave, along with 
the bodies, were placed funeral gifts in the form of trinkets and 
food; the funeral feast was cooked and eaten on the level space in 
front of the cave; carnivorous beasts gnawed the bones left on the 
spot. It is evident that the Aurignac men practised religious rites 
which indicated a belief in immortality.” 1) 

Perhaps one of the most interesting and curious cases is that 
of the Talgai skull found in Australia some few years ago. It was 


Lay pr iit. 

15) Quoted by Samuel Harris, The Philosophical Basis of Theism. 
Scribner’s, 1892, p. 460. The following Chicago Tribune cable, dated Cape 
Town, South Africa, August 5, 1925, is apposite in more than one respect: 
“A modern native with a prehistoric head has been discovered in Africa. 
The discovery was made while working in a dissecting-room on the cadaver 
of a native who died a few weeks ago. The skull is exactly of the same 
type as that of the Boskop prehistoric man discovered in the Transvaal 
twelve years ago. The present skull has a brain capacity of 2,000 cubic 
centimeters, whereas the average European has a brain capacity of only 
1,500. Previously the Boskop type has only been known in the fossil form. 
Professor Drennan, who made the find while measuring the brain capacity 
of different skulls, said: “The present skull measures 212 millimeters, which 
is several millimeters longer than the longest skull known.’ ” 

16) Elements of Geology, p. 596. 


84 “HOW OLD IS MAN?” 


dug up in a billabong (a little stream flowing out of a river and 
ending in a pool). Undoubtedly it is the cranium of a person of 
small brain and presents other characters generally associated with 
a low level of civilization. It was claimed to be of great age and 
to represent an inhabitant of the country of great antiquity. In fact, 
we had the old ascription of a million years made use of in a lecture 
on the subject. Others, more conservative, put its age down as 50,000 
years. Then there appears upon the scene one Mr. Archibald Meston, 
who for years held the position of “Protector of the Aborigines” in 
Queensland, who says that “it is a somewhat sorrowful duty to remove 
the Talgai skull from the realms of romance,” but that to his 
knowledge a black fellow was shot by the native police and buried 
in that billabong, the grave being filled with red basaltic clay of the 
kind in which the supposed ancient skull was found. That, one 
would have thought, was an end of the Talgai skull. But Prof. Elliot 
Smith, brother to the gentleman who is the sponsor for this skull, in 
his recent work on the Evolution of Man, still stands by it and speaks 
of it as of great antiquity and fossilized. That makes the whole 
thing very mysterious and at least causes one to feel that caution 
should be exercised where it is so doubtful as to what the period of 
this object may be. 


Man and the Primates. 


It is evident that in answering the question, “How old is man?” 
Mr. Roosevelt has taken counsel with a naturalist who has adopted 
the most extreme opinions of modern scientists, and that he has - 
represented much controverted subjects as if they were the assured 
results of science. It should be said, however, that in one point 
Mr. Roosevelt is in agreement with the consensus of modern theorizers 
on the antiquity of man: all hold that man is the product of an 
evolution extending over eons of prehistoric time. We cannot leave 
this subject without briefly investigating the grounds upon which 
this general assumption rests. 

Mr. Roosevelt says: The mammals “developed along many dif- 
ferent lines, including that of the primates, from which came the 
monkeys and anthropoid apes and finally the half-human predecessors 
of man himself.” (p.112.) Here again the distinguished writer 
adds to a doctrine generally held by scientists certain features which 
by no means reflect orthodox university belief of to-day. Let us 
concede that biologists are now nearly unanimous in the conclusion 
that there has been some kind of evolution; yet they are very 
doubtful as to its rationale, its causes, and the probable lines of 
phylogeny, or the “tree of life.’ No reputable scientist, be he 
geologist, paleontologist, anthropologist, or biologist, would state the 


“HOW OLD IS MAN?” 85 


matter as Mr. Roosevelt states it, that “from the primates came the 
monkeys, the anthropoid apes, and finally the half-human prede- 
cessors of man himself.” True, Haeckel’s Natural History of 
Creation contains a complete and circumstantial history of human 
ancestry in twenty-two stages of existence, from the unicellular 
Monera up to perfect Man. But Du Bois-Reymond, many years 
ago, declared Haeckel’s genealogical tree (Stammbaum) to be “as 
authentic in the eyes of the trained naturalist as are the pedigrees 
of Homer’s heroes in those of an historian.” Thereby Du Bois- 
Reymond incurred the bitter and unappeasable wrath of Haeckel; 
yet there is no scientist to-day who does not, with Du Bois-Reymond, 
as against Haeckel, reject the notion that animal forms as they are 
to-day can actually be traced through fossil ancestors to the original, 
simple cell. 


We may go a step farther. The best authorities are no longer 
unanimous in classifying man biologically with the order of 
Primates.!”) Science gives increasing weight to the opinion that 
man is not a member of the same order of creatures as the monkey 
and the ape. Homo sapiens is being differentiated from the order 
of Primates, even as the bat, which Linné classified as a Primate, 


17) Mr. Roosevelt seems to distinguish the anthropoid apes, the mon- 
keys, and man from the Primates. He refers to “the Primates, from which 
came the monkeys,” ete. Now, “Primates” has in biological language al- 
ways included monkeys, apes (7.e., tailless monkeys), and man. Huxley 
divided the Primates into seven families, among them man being the first. 
Max Weber originated the classification: Anthropoid Primates, with sub- 
orders Simiae (species: Man, apes, baboons, monkeys), and Prosimiae 
(lemurs). Professor Dorn, of Fort Wayne, informed us that neither Brehm’s 
Tierleben nor the Cambridge Natural History, the greatest works on zoology 
in German and English, respectively, draw a distinction such as Mr. Roose- 
velt appears to draw, between Primates and the order which includes man 
and the apes, but use “Primate” as a class name for Lemuroidea and An- 
thropoidea (monkeys, apes, man). Mr. Roosevelt’s employment of the term 
“Primates” is so very unusual that we took occasion to make inquiry by 
letter. Under date of May 8, Mr. Roosevelt replied as follows: — 


“My Dear. Sir: — 

“That sentence seems to me to be clear. At any rate, what I meant 
was that one of the original mammalian lines was that of the Primates, 
which originally consisted of low lemuroid forms. From the original stem 
the monkeys broke off at some date when the anthropoid apes and the 
predecessors of man were still part of the same stem. Then this second 
stem divided, the anthropoid apes splitting from the branch which led to 
the half-human predecessors of man. In other words, I regard these half- 
human predecessors of man not as descendants from the anthropoid apes, 


86 “HOW OLD IS MAN?” 


was differentiated long ago. The differences which have greatly 
impressed all who have given the matter special consideration are 
(aside from the intellectual superiority of man) the peculiarities 
of the human walk and his unique dentition. Professor Dana, the 
greatest paleontologist our country has produced, says in the final 
edition of his Manual of Geology, p.1017: “Man stands in the 
successional line of the Quadrumana, at the head of the Animal 
Kingdom. But he is not a Primate among Primates. The Quadru- 
mana (apes) are Brute Mammals, as is manifested in their Carnivore- 
like canines and their powerful jaws; in their powerful muscular 
development; in their walking on all fours; and the adaptation 
thereto exhibited in the vertebrae, producing the convexity of the 
back; and also in other parts of the skeleton. Man, on the contrary, 
is not Quadrumanous.!8) His limbs are of the primitive type so 
common in the Eocene. He is plantigrade,” has neither hoofs nor 
claws to his five toes, but something between the two. “Moreover, 
in his teeth ‘Man is thoroughly primitive, he having in fact the 


but both as descended from remote ancestors, who had split off from the 
monkeys; all, of course, tracing back to the early Primates. Of course, 
the order of Primates includes all of them alike. If you turn to Professor 
Osborn’s book, you will see the matter gone over in some detail. 


“Sincerely yours, 
“THEODORE ROOSEVELT.” 


This statement clears up the reference to Primates earlier than man 
and the monkey; these Primates “originally consisted of low lemuroid 
forms.” This was the opinion held fifteen years ago. But if anything has 
been definitely established since that time, it is the fact that the fossil re- 
mains once depended upon supply no evidence for this hypothesis. No 
direct line leading from man to extinct lemurs has been traced. See the 
opinions of Cope and Hubrecht hereafter quoted. 


18) We have traveled a long way since Dr. Moscati taught that the 
upright walk of man is a cause of much inconvenience and disease, proving 
that he was misled by reason and imitation to deviate from the first ani- 
mal arrangement. Thus, for example, if man had continued to walk on 
all fours, his intestines would not have come into their present “pendulous 
and half reversed condition,’ which is a cause of “deformities and nu- 
merous diseases.” Again, “the heart, because it is compelled to hang free, 
elongates the blood-vessels to which it is attached, assumes an oblique: po- 
sition, since it is supported by the diaphragm, and slides with its end 
against the left side —a position wherein man differs from all other ani- 
mals and thereby receives an inevitable inclination to aneurism, palpita- 
tion, asthma, chest-dropsy, ete., ete.” Thus it is proved that man is really 
by nature intended to be, and originally undoubtedly was, quadrupedal! 
(Quoted in Kant and Spencer, by Dr. Paul Carus, p. 44.) 


“HOW OLD IS MAN?” 87 


original quadrituberculate form of molar, with but little modifica- 
tion’ . .. All these low-grade characteristics and despecialized 
conditions of the structure evince that man does not pertain z0o- 
logically to the group called Primates, either to the higher or lower 
end of the series. The divergence from the Quadrumana is mani- 
festly great.” These divergencies, says Dana, p. 1036, “are admitted 
proof that he has not descended from any existing type of ape. In 
addition,.man’s erect posture makes the gap a very broad one. The 
search for ‘missing links’ has been carried forward with deep 
interest during recent years. But although fossil skeletons have 
been found among remains of the Pleistocene mammals in Europe 
and America, none show any departure from the erect posture or 
have smaller brain cavity than occurs among existing races of 
men. ... Since man’s structural relations are, in several respects, 
closest with the precursors of the Quadrumana,” 7. e., with fossil 
specimens which are, geologically, “earlier” than the monkeys and 
apes, “his derivation from any known type of man-ape has been 
pronounced impossible.” The reader will observe that this opinion 
of the dean of American paleontologists flatly contradicts the primate 
or ape ancestorship which Mr. Roosevelt with such insouciance 
summarizes in the introduction to his paper. 

Agassiz says, simply: “Man does not descend from the mammals 
which preceded him in the Tertiary age.” Nor is this merely the 
view of an old-school geologist, but it is the regnant opinion among 
scientists to-day. The structural differences between man and the 
modern ape are held to be absolutely insuperable. All “other” 
Primates have a tendency to elongation of the canine teeth. All 
apes support themselves on the sides of the feet and the bent knuckles 
of the hand.19) They are, as Dana says, not plantigrade. Geologically 
speaking, the characteristics of man’s teeth and of his walk are 
“more ancient,” less “developed,” than the dentition and walk of 
the Primates. In addition, Mr. Tylor is constrained to say, in 
the Encyclopedia Britannica (II, 110): “The differences between 
a gorilla’s skull and man’s are truly immense.” He quotes Huxley: 
“On psychological grounds, Huxley acknowledged an immeasurable 
and practically infinite divergence, ending in the present enormous 
psychological gulf between ape and man.” 

Thus, aside from the great disparity between the intellect of 
man and of the ape, the laws of development which are generally 
applied in establishing degrees of relationship in the plan (or “tree’) 
of life have been seen to militate against ranging man with any 
existing animal, and the idea that man has living ancestors among 


19) Encycl. Brit., II, 109. 


88 “HOW OLD IS MAN?” 


the apes and monkeys is definitely given up. And this is truly an 
amazing fact. Far from establishing a close relationship between 
man and the ape, scientific research has established the fact that 
there is not only among existing species, but even in the fossil 
remains not a single specimen which can properly be called a link 
in the chain of man’s descent.) So far as man is concerned, the 
development of which Mr. Roosevelt speaks, from “small warm- 
blooded beasts to the Primates,” etc., is mere hypothesis. There is 
not only one missing link (viz., the one between ape and man), but 
the entire genealogy of man is made up of missing links, in other 
words, is speculation pure and simple. 

Reputable scientists, who should be carefully distinguished from 
irresponsible amateurs, who have no ballast of information to keep 
them on an even keel, make no secret of this disheartening fact. 
Dr. Berndt, in the article from which we have already quoted, says: 
“Trees of life, apparently built for all ages, have fallen or have 
become mere shrubs of life (Stammbuesche), covered with a tangle 
of scientific doubt.” “We are farther than ever removed from the 
answer to the question, Whence the vertebrates?” Animals once 
confidently termed “primitive” are now recognized as high in the 
scale of development. “And Max Weber, one of the best authorities 
on mammals, regards the anthropoid apes of to-day as a branch 
parallel to the human branch. Scholars like Cope, Adloeff, Klaatsch, 
prefer to push the origin of man back to the earliest Eocene, whence 
he went his way from the very outset separate from the apes.” This 
is a highly significant utterance. It means nothing more than this: 
there is not one recognizable link which unites man with the animal 
kingdom. All the intermediate forms between man and the original 
jelly-fish, which according to Haeckel and Vogt was his ancestor, 
have disappeared. For their existence we have nothing but the 
word of a rapidly diminishing number of scientists. 

Positive denial of the Darwinian theory of human descent was 
made in 1923 by no less an authority than Prof. Arthur Coutiere, 
famous author of numerous biological and medical works. Address- 
ing the Academy of Medicine at Paris, Professor Coutiere declared 
that the ape was created after man and that “the human being and 
the ape have always been types apart.” 

The latest conception which has been advanced by evolutionists 
is that of Multiple Origin. By this is meant that the same species 
have originated independently at: various places on the earth’s 
surface. It is held, for instance, that the animals of South America 
have had an evolution independent from the same animals on other 


20) See quotations from Wallace, above; also Virchow. 


“HOW OLD IS MAN?” 89 


continents. It is believed, too, that the natives of the Amazon 
country were evolved from the brute right on the spot and did not 
immigrate from elsewhere. Mr. W. H. Ballou, defending Multiple 
Origin, invites attention to the fact that the natives of Brazil are 
the most expert of all the swimmers and can remain long under 
water. He continues: “Associated with them are other land 
mammals.... Inference is that men and other mammals, including 
monkeys, arose in the Amazon country from varied types of amphibia 
which precede them.” Now, the supporters of this Multiple Origin 
theory are very bitter against the Single Origin evolutionists. 
Listen to Mr. Ballou: “American proponents to the single (Asiatic) 
orign theory have been cowed and led by the nose [the italics are 
my own] for years by a group of bureaucrats intrenched in Wash- 
ington. These bureaucrats, now all discredited, have attacked every 
scientist who described their American human fossil or skeleton finds 
as prehistoric. They languidly pawed over such bones and learnedly 
dubbed them ‘modern Indian.’” He adds that the Multiple Origin 
evolutionists have “effectually crushed these bureaucrats, leaving 
them discredited and ridiculed, turning into trash some costly mono- 
graphs and volumes, paid for by taxation of the American people 
and the funds of misguided philanthropists.” 

The truth is that the tree of life looks less and less like a tree, 
the farther research traces out in fossil remains the actual history 
of life. About 1890 Mr. Topinard still told us that the common 
origin of man and the anthropoid apes is to be found in an animal 
of the type of the Old World monkeys, while all monkeys, in turn, 
find a common root in a type like that of the lemurs. It became 
somewhat different when Professor Cope suggested that advancing 
knowledge led to the belief that the Anthropomorpha (7. e., man and 
the anthropoid apes) are not derived from the monkeys, but the two 
branches run back independently to find their first connection in the 
lemurs, the common ancestor of both; not, however, he added, in 
any existing type of lemur, but in extinct types of the Eocene period, 
that is to say, of the oldest geological period in which traces of 
animal life appear. This, again, is simply saying that there is no 
paleontological evidence for a tree of life with connecting links 
between man and the brutes. 

The truly amazing fact that the various forms of life appear 
not more, but less related, the farther the evidence is being looked 
into, is admitted in every up-to-date text-book of paleontology or 
geology. Dana says in his great work, in a discussion of the 
development of life on the globe: “The lines of succession seldom 
connect the grander divisions of classes or tribes. ... Instead of 


90 “HOW OLD IS MAN?” 

lines from Amphibians to Reptiles and thence to Birds or to 
Mammals, all three groups, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals, were 
probably derived directly from the Amphibians.” (Manual of 
Geology, p. 1031.) Hence anthropologists were for decades much 
divided on the question whether the different races of men have had 
a common or a separate origin. Dr.S.G. Morton thought he could 
point out twenty-two centers in which the human race originated. 
The majority now believe that man originated in some one locality, 
and from a single pair. The origin of this pair, however, is shrouded 
in Cimmerian night. Only so much is pretty well agreed that no 
animal now living supplied the species from which modern man has 
“developed.” As we have noted, a feeble attempt has been made to 
trace man through a side-line of the Primates, through the monkeys 
called lemurs, Lemuridae. These are a species of woolly-haired 
monkeys, about the size of a cat, with long, bushy tails and foxlike 
faces. They do not distantly resemble a human being, but have 
several structural similarities in common with man. An Eocene 
fossil has been found, the earliest known four-handed creature, called 
Anaptomorphus homunculus. The Neo-Lamarckian E. D. Cope 
traced the pedigree of man through the anthropoid apes to this 
minute animal, which he regarded as a lemur. (An illustration in 
Dana’s Manual, p. 906, shows the skull of this creature to have been - 
one inch in diameter.) But this identification is now pretty well 
relinquished by the evolutionists. Only five years ago Prof. A. A. W. 
Hubrecht, of Utrecht University, “conclusively” showed that Anapto- 
morphus belongs not to the lemurs, but to a line of its own approach- 
ing the anthropoid apes and sharply separated from the lemurs.2!) 
This again signifies that whilst the Eocene Anaptomorphus, to quote 
Mr. Cope, “strongly suggests a line of descent leading to man, the . 
gap is much wider than men used to regard it, and the intermediate 
links are still missing.” Such retrogression in the claims of “assured 
results” should make all amateurs careful. All dogmatic assertion — 


21) The Descent of the Primates. Scribner’s, 1897. Professor Hu- 
brecht suggests that it may not be unwise to assume as the ancestor of 
man and the anthropoids an early Eocene Primate, differing from the 
apes, whose descent must be traced back, independently of the ancestors 
of the modern apes, to the amphibian father of all. It has been perti- 
nently said that this “tree of life” “will soon begin to look amazingly like 
a plantation of canes, each growing independently from a common soil” 
(The Presbyterian and Reformed Review, 1898, p.782), in other words, 
will resemble very closely the tree of life suggested by Genesis, chapter 1. 
Professor Hubrecht says: “The genera known to us very rarely converge 
toward known predecessors as we go backward in geological time,” 7. e., 


“HOW OLD IS MAN?” 91 


and in this Mr. Roosevelt’s article abounds —is out of place where 
the leaders in scientific research are admittedly at sea. The caution 
uttered by Charles Darwin in his Origin of Species is still in place; 
he says that in our present state of knowledge it seems to him “about 
as rash to dogmatize on the succession of organic forms throughout 
the world as it would be for a naturalist to land for five minutes on 
some barren point in Australia and then to discuss the number and 
range of its productions.” 


Anthropological research has produced no FACTS that are at 
variance with Genesis, chapter one. Concerning the Neanderthaler, 
the Cro-Magnon Man, etc., Dr. Dawson has said: “Geological evi- 
dence resolves itself into a calculation of the rate of erosion of river 
valleys, of deposition of gravel and cave-earths, and of formation of 
stalagmite crusts, all of which are so variable and uncertain that, 
though it may be said that an impression of great antiquity beyond 
the time of received history has been left on the minds of geologists, 
no absolute antiquity has been proved; and while some, on such 
evidence, would stretch the antiquity of man to even half a million 
years, the oldest of these remains may, after all, not exceed our 
traditional six thousand.” 22) “These skeletons ... tell us that 
primitive man had the same high cerebral organization which he 
possesses now, and we may infer the same high intellectual and 
moral nature, fitting him for communication with God and headship 
over the lower world.” 23) Similarly Figuier held that “we know of 
no archeological find [stone hatchets, etc.] that could not be pro- 
nounced only five thousand years old as well as fifty thousand.” 
This would bring back the Age of Man to the limits given to human 
history by that object of scientific derision, the Ussher dates, in the 
margin of the Authorized Version. 


there is no evidence of development according to the lines of the evolu- 
tionary theory; “their respective genealogies run much more parallel to 
each other, the point of meeting being thus continually transported back- 
ward toward yet older geological strata.” (The Descent of the Primates, 
pp. 39. 40.) Viewing this endeavor of the evolutionists to lay down new 
hypothetical lines of descent here, there, and everywhere, rather than to 
ask seriously whether any such really exist in nature, one is tempted 
to suspect that, if writers of this kind did not put “evolution” into their 
premises, they would hardly find it in their conclusions. 


22) Nature and the Bible, p. 160. 
23) Ibid., p. 175. 


99 MAN AND MONKEY, 


10. Man and Monkey. 


Rather, let us say, three monkeys. For according to an article 
entitled “Fresh Evidence of Our Apish Ancestry,” appearing in 
a 1925 issue of Current Opinion, the human race is derived from 
three different monkeys, the Orang-utan, the Gorilla, and the Chim- 
panzee. Moreover, it is the simplest thing in the world to discover 
just which of these tailless monkeys or apes is your own particular 
ancestor. How, if you permit the somewhat indelicate question, do 
you hold your legs when you squat? If you seat yourself with your 
legs crossed level in front of you, you have a Mongol strain in your 
blood and your great-x-grandpa was an orang. Do you arrange your 
legs perpendicularly in front of you? Then trace your line to the 
gorilla, who squats in this position. Do you at the same time lean 
forward on your feet? Boy, page Mr. Chimpanzee! 

We are writing in a spirit of levity ill becoming the discussion 
of a scientific question. But we beg to differ; the Current Opinion 
article is not science, but a caricature of science, a badly drawn 
cartoon of science. Yet three pages of the magazine are given to 
this bit of balderdash. Listen: “The American Indian sits like an 
Oriental and is therefore definitely grouped with the orangs.” 
Again: “When a group of children in their bathing-suits squat 
around in a sand castle on the beach, we can determine at a glance — 
their remote ancestry.’ And the article which contains this un- 
qualifiable rot begins and ends with a fling at “Fundamentalists” — 
by which believing Bible Christians are meant. “Dr. Crookshank’s 
entire thesis will, of course, infuriate the Fundamentalists.” Oh, no, 
my editor-friend, nothing of the kind! A little concentrated non- 
sense like this every three months will be sufficient to convert old 
Uncle Osborn himself to the belief that evolution is a hoax. 
Infuriate? We could wish for nothing better than to have that 
sentence about the bathing beach inscribed with inch-high letters 
on the footboard of the bed of every evolutionist, where it will 
strike his eyes as they open from slumber. He might in the course 
of time awaken from what Immanuel Kant called “dogmatic 
slumbers,” — the faith in theories which parade as verities. And 
under the sentence about the bathing-beach children we should like 
to inscribe the words HAVA SUPAI and draw next to these the 
rude picture of a dinosaur. 

Hava Supai is the name “a a canyon in Northern Arizona. 
Where it joins Lee Canyon, a scientific expedition has found pictures 
cut into the wall by the hand of some prehistoric artist. These 
pictures show a variety of animals, most of them extinct in America, 
elephants, ibex—and a dinosaur. Now, the discovery of this 


MAN AND MONKEY. 93 


drawing of a dinosaur is the greatest sensation in the history of 
anthropological science. For, if man lived in the age assigned to the 
dinosaur, then he lived countless eons before there ever was an ape 
or monkey. This picture completely annihilates every theory which 
would derive man from an ape ancestor. But do scientists now begin 
to give some credit to the story of man’s creation as recorded in 
Genesis? By no means. The conclusion which one of them, Samuel 
Hubbard, curator of an Oakland, Cal., museum, draws, is that man 
is not a descendant from, but ancestor to, the ape!! We quote from 
a Los Angeles dispatch of May 19 to the Chicago Journal: — 

“The pictographs show a variety of animals — elephants, horses, 
mountain sheep, ibex. Also men hunting these are shown. 

“But, most important of all, in Mr. Hubbard’s estimation, is the 
picture upon one of the canyon walls of a dinosaur, standing and 
balancing itself upon its tail. It is a dinosaur sketched, as it were, 
upon its native heath. 

“<This picture of the dinosaur,’ says Mr. Hubbard, ‘was drawn 
by some prehistoric artist, some man who actually had seen a living 
dinosaur. There is no good reason to believe that this dinosaur was 
not contemporaneous with the elephants, the ibex, the horses, ete., 
whose likenesses, though crude, also were found upon these walls. 

“<But right here I am challenged. I am told the dinosaur dis- 
appeared from this earth 12,000,000 years before the advent of man. 
To this my rejoinder is: Would this prehistoric artist draw a sketch 
of an animal—and a live one at that—vwhich had disappeared 
from the earth 12,000,000 years before he came? No, he would not. 
Rather, as inferred by the pictures of the animals generally upon 
the walls, he sketched those of which he had vivid recollection. And 
among such was the dinosaur. 

“<Therefore, if some prehistoric man drew a dinosaur standing, 
this probably means that man goes back in geologic time to the 
Triassic period when dinosaurs flourished.’ ” 

Now, then: — 

“This being the case, we then are face to face with this con- 
clusion: The monkey, to use the word popular to cover the species, 
is descended from man, with the great apes a degenerate form of 
man. Of course, the scientific theory which we have accepted is that 
in the orderly processes of nature man was the last animal created. 
I now am convinced, mostly by this picture of the dinosaur, that the 
theory thus is not true, but that, instead, its reverse is true. 

“This reversal of theory, in my estimation, also accounts for 
the fact that most prehistoric skulls as we encounter them have 


94 MAN AND MONKEY. 


practically the same brain capacity as has the present-day skull 
of man.” 

At this point I would suggest that all my readers uncover 
and bow their heads for one minute in reverence before the scien- 
tifie mind. 

No one is so blind as he who does not want to see. 

That existing theories about the age of man and of his derivation 
in line of descent from the apes are demolished by the discovery of 
these pictographs, is clear from the following paragraph, which 
I quote in full, in spite of its length, from an article by Dr. Arthur 
Selwyn Brown in the New York Herald-Tribune of January 4, 1925: 

“Man has had a vast ancestry. If we could clearly trace it to 
its source, we should probably find it in some active unicellular 
organism living in the Archean era. He became known to nat- 
uralists through his bone remains, his stone implements, and his 
pictorial drawings and ornaments. But he was then a well-developed, 
intelligent being, not very different from the modern man. He or 
his more immediate apelike ancestors must have gone through a long 
preparatory training and development before an animal so wonder- 
fully intelligent arose that he was entitled to be called sapient. 

“The geological record shows that gigantic animals like the 
dinosaurs arose in the Triassic era. These were followed in the 
Jurassic era by the development of birds and flying reptiles. 
Flowering plants appeared in the lower Mesozoic period. Then there 
was a wide development of reptilian life and its extinction in the 
latter part of the Mesozoic era. Great archaic mammals appeared 
in the Paleocene period, and the Eocene era witnessed the advent 
of many species of the higher mammals. This was the period in 
which the immediate ancestors of man made great progress in their 
evolution from a primitive condition to a high mammalian status. 
Anthropoid apes were well established in the Olgicene age, and the 
Miocene era saw the full flowering of mammalian life. Here the 
seeds were set for one of the greatest events in organic evolution 
and one of the most startling dramatic moments in history — the 
transformation of an apelike animal into man, which occurred in 
the Pliocene period. Just as this great event passed off, there were 
startling changes in the climatic conditions of the earth. A warm 
or mild climate was succeeded by a cold one, which ushered in the 
long and important period known as the Glacial epoch.” * 

This paragraph offers nothing new to students of evolution. 
Dr. Brown merely summarizes in popular form the generally accepted 


* See geological divisions of time above, p. 55. 


MAN AND MONKEY. i 95 


views regarding man’s origin. According to it, millions of years are 
demanded for the interval between the age of the giant lizards and 
the age of man’s animal ancestors. These millions of years are 
wiped out by the dinosaur pictograph in Hava Supai Canyon, as 
the millions in Confederate paper were wiped out when Lee sur- 
rendered. It is like withdrawing from a public accountant permission 
to use the multiplication table. He’s out of a job. Man living in 
the age of dinosaurs leaves the teacher of ‘evolution without a job. 

In Oxford, Sir Arthur Keith, an expert in anatomy, lectured 
last January on a skull found in Rhodesia, South Africa. He 
believed this skull to be “the oldest in existence.” Its owner must 
have lived “between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago.” Everybody 
sat in mute admiration of speculative science. Now, this same 
Professor Keith some years ago said that the Galley Hill skull was 





McCann: God — or Gorilla 


Rhodesia Cave-Man. 


The drawing to the right was made by a newspaper artist; it shows 

an apelike skull with a very low crown. The actual photograph shows 

that it is a very human skull with a considerable forehead. The drawing 
shows how evidence is manufactured by evolutionists. 


250,000 years old, 50,000 years older than the skull from South 
Africa. But the Galley Hill skull was submitted to a jury of experts, 
who, after careful examination, reported that the thing was not 
a skull at all, but merely an oddly shaped bit of stone. And as for 
the Rhodesia skull, Prof. B. Windle has just affirmed that it is not 
even fossilized, and that “it was found in a cave into which it had 
probably fallen through a crack.” 

In a quarry near Rutherford College, in North Carolina, a large 
bone was found last year, which was inspected by scientists from 
various parts of the country, some of whom declared it to be the 
tooth of some prehistoric reptile, while others said that it was the 
knee-cap of a monster not less than 300,000 years old, “when the 
_ Mississippi Valley was an inland sea.” Later the owner of the quarry 


96 MAN AND MONKEY. 


in question, Mr. A. T. Abernethy, of Burke County, N. C., announced 
that it was one of the joints from the backbone of a whale which 
had been washed ashore on the North Carolina coast in 1882. He 
recognized it by a split in the bone where his brother had sawed out 
a piece when he needed some bone to repair a part of his violin. 
Moreover, he had himself deposited the specimen in the quarry in 
order to test the ability of scientists to determine the age of bones 
taken from the earth! 

It will be objected that even sound science may fail at times, 
and that such errors as just instanced need not affect our opinion of 
the age of man, as stated by scientists. However, the argument 
cannot be terminated by any such evasion. We hold that the doctrine 
of evolutionists regarding the origin of man is not only not proved, 
but that it is disproved, particularly through the dinosaur pictograph, 
which places man’s existence as a rational being in a period in which 
even his more proximate “ancestors,” the apes, had not yet been 
evolved. It would be a simple matter to quote anthropologists who 
have, even before the Hava Supai drawings were found, declared 
that more accurate anatomical research has raised unexpected diffi- 
culties for the theory which connects man with the prehistoric apes. 
Furthermore, it will not do to say that, after all, “all scientists are 
agreed on the general truth of the theory of evolution.” We have 
heard this asserted so often, particularly during the turmoil raised by 
the Tennessee evolution case, that it is worth our time to investigate 
this claim. 

That scientists, as a rule, are evolutionists can readily be 
granted. That they are agreed on a single fact, mode, or process 
involved in the theory of evolution must as strenuously be denied. 
We shall here set in parallel columns two statements about the 
general truth of evolution, one (to the left) by Dr. H. L. Fairchild, 
taken from his valedictory as president of the American Association 
for the Advancement of Science, the other from a recent address by 
Professor Bateson, president of the British Association of the same 
name : — 


“The modern biologist goes a 
step farther (than Darwin) and 
is looking for the origin of 
variations and the mechanism 
of heredity, problems far beyond 
Darwin’s times. But he stands 
on the foundation built by Dar- 


win since the whole structure of — 
modern philosophy rests on that 


foundation.” 


“We go to Darwin for his 
incomparable collection of facts. 
We would fain emulate his schol- 
arship, his width and power of 
exposition, but to us he speaks 
no more wth philosophical 
authority.” 


UNSOLVED MYSTERIES OF EVERY DAY. 97 


It will be observed that these two men, of equal standing in the 
scientific world, differ on the fundamental question whether Darwin’s 
idea is the foundation of modern philosophy, or whether his authority 
shall be denied. According to Fairchild, the idea of Natural Selec- 
tion (for this is the essence of Darwinism) applies to all philosophy, 
hence also to the human stock. If he is right, then a stock-breeding 
establishment, the stud-farm, is the shining exemplar for human 
society, and it becomes a matter for a jury of middle-aged cranks 
of both sexes to decide whether a boy or a girl is to mate, and whom, 
and whether their offspring is fit to live (for the “survival of the 
fittest” is simply the “non-survival of the unfitted”). On the other 
hand, if Bateson is right, we are now, seventy years after Darwin, 
again without any voice that can speak with authority regarding 
the essence of what evolution is or was. We are again where one- 
third of us started, if Dr. Crookshank is right, with the chimpanzee 
“up a tree,” when asked, What IS evolution? 


11. Unsolved Mysteries of Every Day. 


“Tf birds could talk, what stories we might hear! We might 
learn of a time, ever so long ago, when their grandfathers were not 
birds at all. Then they could not fly, for they had neither wings 
nor feathers. The grandfathers of our birds had four legs, a long 
tail, and jaws set with teeth. After a time, feathers grew upon their 
bodies, and their four legs became changed for flying. These were 
strange-looking creatures. ‘There are none living like them now.” 

I have copied, in the above, a quotation from the Home Primary 
Geography, by Harold W. Fairbanks, Revised Edition, published by 
the Educational Publishing Company. The extract is from page 124. 
This is the doctrine our American children in the public school 
imbibe in their geography lesson. 

Concerning the descent of man another schoolbook has this: 
“His [man’s] structure indicates descent from ancestors of apelike 
habits, living in trees and on fruits.” (High School Geography, by 
Charles R. Dryer, page 255; American Book Company.) 

These statements are put forth with an assurance as definite as 
the statement that a straight line is the shortest distance between 
two points. Birds are descended from reptiles, man has once been 
a brute; 3 and 7 are 10,—take it or leave it. 

It is quite sure that the authors of these text-books were absent 
when the grace of humility was bestowed upon tthe children of men. 
They are cock-sure of everything, these writers of school-texts. 


Essays on Evolution. 7 


98 UNSOLVED MYSTERIES OF EVERY DAY. 


IT have on my shelf a book written for the little tots, entitled What 
Every Child Should Know About Earth and Sky, which on 244 pages 
sets forth how all things came into being by evolution. 

All of these authors assume that they know something about 
events according to their reckoning a hundred million years past. 
It is a pertinent question to ask, What do they know about the 
present? And it is a remarkable thing to observe how modest true 
scientists become when we ask them the question, What do you 
really know? Most of them are ready to answer even regarding the 
commonest things: Jgnoramus, which is Latin for the plain English, 
We don’t know! 

Thomas A. Edison, in the American Magazine for August, 1921, 
said: “We don’t know one-millionth part of one per cent. about 
anything. We don’t know what water is. We don’t know what 
light is. We don’t know what gravitation is. We don’t know what 
enables us to keep on our feet to stand up. We don’t know what 
electricity is. We don’t know what heat is. We don’t know anything 
about magnetism. We have a lot of hypotheses, but that is all.” 

Voltaire, the ablest of France’s infidels, who is a patron saint of 
the evolutionists of to-day, was in his generation considered the 
wisest and wittiest man in Europe. Yet did he know anything? 
Hear him: “The more we have read, the more we have learned, and 
the more we have meditated, the better-conditioned we are to affirm 
that we know nothing.” 

Concerning the very elements of science, Prof. William Bateson 
said in Science, August, 1914: “Of the physics and chemistry of 
life we know next to nothing. Living things are found by a simple 
experiment to have powers undreamed of, and who knows what may 
be behind?” An address by Dr. Nicholas M. Butler, president of 
Columbia University, is quoted by the Catalyst, an organ of the 
American Chemical Society, as follows: “Theoretically the average 
scientific investigator will admit that many of his beliefs are merely 
hypotheses, but practically he will fight for them as though they 
were demonstrated facts. In view of the constantly shifting grounds 
of scientific data the men of science ought to be thankful for the 
comparative tolerance with which their dogmatizing is received.” 

Observe the extremely cautious statement of Professor Coulter, 
of Chicago University, the foremost botanist of America, regarding 
the present state of evolution: “Darwin carried the method of 
observation and inference to its limit; but inference is not demon- 
stration. Evolution is a very intricate process, and the earlier expla- 
nations deal only with the more superficial phenomena. They are 
true as they go, but they do not get at the fundamentals.” 


UNSOLVED MYSTERIES OF EVERY DAY. 99 


Then he propounds as questions still open, the following: “What 
is the cause of variation? What is the nature of the variations that 
are important in evolution? How may variations be perpetuated and 
multiplied? How are the variations manipulated to effect progressive 
evolution ?” 

(The reader will understand that thirty years ago we were told 
that all these questions had been answered and that those who 
opposed evolution were simply fighting windmills.) 

When I was a boy, science said the atom was the smallest 
possible division of matter; now “science” says the atom is a whole 
system of gyrating worlds. A few generations ago science said the 
sun revolved around the earth; then science denied that and said 
the sun is standing still and the earth does the revolving; now 
science says both statements are false, and both earth and sun are 
whizzing through space. A year or so ago science said that light is 
a form of motion; now science says that light is matter and subject 
to gravitation. Of course, a few old mossback professors have not 
come around to it yet, but Professor Einstein says it is so. 

Which scientist has been able to explain why the Quebec bridge 
collapsed during construction — collapsed not once, but three times, 
although built absolutely in accord with the accepted theory of 
strains? How can they expect us to trust them when they say what 
has happened in the gas-ball stage of the universe if they are not 
sure of the laws which govern bridge-building ? 

True scholars have always been humble, and the greatest of 
them have been Christians. It was Isaac Newton, one of the 
mightiest intellects of all time, who said that all he knew amounted 
to a few pebbles gathered on the shores of infinity. Pascal, the 
mathematical genius, Faraday, the physicist, Sir William Dawson, 
the Canadian scientist, Linné, the greatest botanist,— all had the 
humble spirit, the contrite heart, and the lowly mind. It is the 
two-cylinder, key-winder scientist, who writes high school texts for 
a living, that knows it all. 

Some time ago I read the story of a little boy with a stick in 
his hand going to his father. The boy was puzzled. He had observed 
a fact for which he could give no account. He submitted the 
problem to his father, saying: “Papa, why is it that, when I take 
hold of one end of this stick and pull, the other end comes along?” 
The story made the father reply, “My son, I do not know.” Some 
time after reading the story, I found in a philosophical religious 
journal an article by the father who was said to have made this 
confession to his son. In the article I came with delight upon an 
authentication of the story. The father there wrote: “No man 


100 UNSOLVED MYSTERIES OF EVERY DAY. 


living knows why, when you take hold of one end of a stick and 
pull, the other end comes along.” The writer of the article and the 
father of the story were the same man, Sir Oliver Lodge, past master 
in physics! 

Well has a modern thinker said: “Developing science, 2. e., 
objective knowledge, is encountering obstacles everywhere. Science 
studies phenomena; just as soon as it attempts to discover causes, 
it is confronted with the wall of the unknown and unknowable... . 
At the present time the situation is just this: the number of 
unknown facts in every region of scientific knowledge is rapidly 
increasing; and the unknown threatens to swallow the known — or 
the accepted as known. One might define the progress of science, 
especially latterly, as a very rapid growth of the regions of nescience 
[things we don’t know]. 

“Nescience, of course, existed before, and not in less degrees than 
at present. But before it was not so clearly recognized — at that 
time science did not know what it did not know. Now it knows 
this more and more, and more and more knows its conditionality. 
A little more, and in every branch of science that which it does 
not know will become greater than that which it knows.” (Ouspensky, 
in Tertium Organum, p. 2338.) 

In his Introduction to Biology, Arthur D. Darbishire is honest 
enough to say: “We are accustomed to express our faith in the fact 
of evolution; but no one pretends to know in detail how it has been 
brought about. ‘These, then, are some of the unsolved problems in 
biology. And a biologist is successful if he proves one of these 
mysteries less of a mystery.” 

Gerald B. Winrod has said in a lecture: “Physically we live in 
a realm of mystery. To illustrate: Housewife, you baked bread 
yesterday. Where did you get the flour? From the grocer. Where 
did he get it? From the jobber. Where did the jobber get it? From 
the miller. Where did the miller get it? From the farmer. Where 
did he get it? From the soil. Where did the soil get the creative 
force that was communicated to the germ of wheat that produced 
the wheat-field? Mystery. Chemists made an egg; it looked like 
an egg, had a yolk like an egg, had a white like an egg, and tasted 
like an egg, but all the hens and incubators in the country could not 
hatch a chicken out of it, because it lacked life. Mystery. Water is 
composed of two elements, hydrogen and oxygen; but concerning 
the ultimate substance from which the two elements come forth 
chemistry can tell us nothing. Mystery. Suns and solar systems 
operate in obedience to fixed laws, but astronomy does not know from 
what source force comes. Mystery. We have learned that the 


UNSOLVED MYSTERIES OF EVERY DAY. 101 


tiniest atom of solid substance that enters into the anatomy of the 
planet is made up of about 1,740 electrons. What are atoms? 
Correlated electrons. What are electrons? Mystery.” 

Lord Kelvin, the English scientist, once said: “One word 
characterizes the most strenuous of the efforts for the advancement 
of science that I have made perseveringly for fifty-five years. That 
word is ‘failure. I know no more of electric and magnetic force 
or of the relation between ether, electricity, and ponderable matter, 
or of chemical affinity, than I knew and tried to teach my students 
of natural philosophy fifty years ago in my first season as professor.” 

Haeckel said: “We grant at once that the innermost character 
of nature is just as little understood by us as it was by Anaximander 
and Empedocles 2,400 years ago.” 

When Halley’s comet in 1910 swung across our sky, a number 
of opinions held by scientists were proved wrong. A humble 
Ignoramus — “We don’t know” — would again have been much more 
in place. The Yoledo Blade said, much to the point: “Certain 
assertions about the nature of Halley’s comet were accepted until 
last Friday as facts. It appears now they were theories. The 
scientists had been guessing; but their guessing carried such a fine 
air of plausibility that the world at large assumed they knew a few 
things about the comet beyond the danger of dispute.” 

Some every-day facts of plant life are a riddle to-day. Diligent 
study made by scientists to discover an explanation for the attrac- 
tion of the root part of a germinating seed toward the earth, and the 
upward growth of the other part has been productive of no solution. 
An analysis of the chemical composition of both root and upward 
shoot shows them to be exactly alike, and yet, beginning at a point 
where they unite, they develop a distinctly opposite inclination, one 
being attracted by light and a tendency to grow upward, and the 
other inclined to grow downward into darkness. When, again, we 
contemplate the fact that of plants growing in the same soil, watered 
with the same water, and in appearance physically alike one will 
produce a brilliant scarlet flower, another, right next to it, will 
produce a perfectly white flower, without a trace of color, and 
another alongside produce a flower of clear blue, we wonder where 
the coloring comes from! It is, indeed, wonderful and mysterious. 
Also, we should note that growing in the same soil, watered with the 
same water, and all growing conditions alike, one plant will produce 
sweetness, another will be quite bitter, another sour, another quite 
peppery. No living scientist can explain these marvels and mysteries 
of nature. 


102 UNSOLVED MYSTERIES OF EVERY DAY. 


A contributor to the Kiwanis Magazine, speaking of the igno- 
rance of scientists regarding the ocean floor, illustrates his statement 
by supposing that an inhabitant of Mars approaches the earth to 
within five miles in a flying-machine and then begins to dip down 
to investigate the surface of the globe, as the oceanographer lets 
down sounding-lines to bring up bits of matter from the bottom. 
“The visitor from Mars cannot approach closer than five miles 
because he cannot live in air (just as the oceanographer cannot live 
in water). Our Martian lets down a sounding-line to the surface of 
the earth he cannot see. Repeated grapplings reward him with 
a dead cat, some pink silk underwear, a straw hat with a hole in it, 
a garden party’s Chinese lantern, and a wheelbarrow. 

“From this collection the Martian proceeds to reason what the 
inhabitants of the earth are like. Obviously, since he has one, he 
concludes that they are limp, furry creatures, very small when young. 
They must be large when grown, because the clothing is for a large 
animal. The climate is very mild, because the clothing is thin. 
The grown animals have horns on their heads, because the headgear 
has a hole in it. It is dark on the earth, because the large, furry, 
horned animals use lanterns. The civilization is slight, because the 
lantern is crude. There is little gravity on the earth, because a one- 
wheeled vehicle will travel over it. The earth is smooth, because the 
vehicle has no springs.” 

So little, says our Kiwanian, do we know about the millions of 
square miles of ocean bottom through efforts to bring up particles 
of matter by means of sounding-lines. 

In spite of all this admitted ignorance concerning facts of our 
every-day life, evolutionary science continues to speak with the 
utmost assurance of events that are said to have taken place when 
this globe of ours was formed, endeavoring to force upon us as an 
ascertained fact that which any person of ordinary intelligence can 
at once perceive is a mere conjecture; a conclusion founded on 
arguments of which the premises have not been proved. For instance, 
no evidence has yet been produced of the occurrence in nature of 
the phenomenon upon which the whole theory is founded — namely, 
a favorable variation; that is to say, an instance of a favored indi- 
vidual possessing such an advantage in the struggle for life as to 
become the progenitor of a new species. 

A great demand is made upon our faith by these skeptical phil- 
osophers when they ask us to believe that the wondrous universe, 
in its diversity of animal and vegetable life, sprang from a molecule 
of a congregation of atoms driven out by force; but it would be 
more easy to accept even such a doctrine if they could only give us. 


UNSOLVED MYSTERIES OF EVERY DAY. 103 


some reasonable hypothesis as to whence the primary germ, the 
wondrous atoms, or the marvelous slime originated, and how it 
happened that, independently of a Creator, any of these came to 
possess in themselves the power of developing a universe. 

Men of science, of all persons, should seek to be free from 
bigotry and prejudice. Yet it is evident that when once entangled 
in the deadly meshes of skeptical pride, while “they profess them- 
selves to be wise, they become fools,” and in very truth “worship 
and serve the creature more than the Creator.” As has been well 
said: “It is asking too much of inanimate material to make a system 
of worlds such that one star shall send heat and light upon an earth 
and make its soil send forth violets, grasses, trees, then animals, and 
finally man. It is asking too much of material things to have them 
arranging the deposits of dew at night, the showers of rain, and the 
ripening influence of the autumn months. It is asking too much 
of dust and ashes to expect them to make beautiful birds to fly in 
the air, beautiful gold and silver fish to live in the crystal brooks — 
too much to expect the power of dust to originate the idea of purple 
grapes and blushing peaches. We know that the material forces of 
nature can help along all these shapes of the wonderful; but if 
dead material can do such wonderful works, man should lament 
that he has a mind, for he has at the outset been wholly surpassed by 
clay that had neither life nor mind!” 






EVOLUTION. 


An Investigation and a Criticism. 






By PROF. TH. GRAEBNER, 


Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Mo. 







CONTENTS. 








Chapter 1. An Outline of the Theory................ ll 
Chapter 2. Unexplained Origins —..00020000000.... 29 
Chapter 3. The Testimony of the Rocks.......... 47 
Chapter 4. The Fixity of Species 0.000.000... 62 
Chapter 5. Rudimentary Organs —..0.0..0.000.. 70 
Chapter (6: linstinct so... ea ete. oo eee 74 
Chapter /. “Heredity 022 2h ee 80 
Chapter 8. A Scientific Creed Outworn............ 87 
Chapters, 9. Marti tires, cc wees ete 94 
Chapter 10. The Verdict of History.................... 113 
Chapter 11. Evidences of Design ~....0..........0-0---- 124 
Chapter12. Thess Fatal Bias jap 141 





Size of book, 514734. 148 pages, bound in heavy art paper cover. 
Price, 80 cts. 





It is the most satisfactory treatise in a small compass 
that is now available, and it can be recommended heartily 
and without qualification. — Sunday-school Times. 








It effectively exposes the evolutionary theory. Of ines- 
timable value to the Church. May God grant it a wide 
distribution! — New York Lutheran. 


No more useful book could have been put on the market 
just now than this brief, but accurate and scholarly treatise 
on the great delusion of evolution. True, real scholars have 
long ago pointed out the utter untenability of the basic sup- 
positions upon which the whole scheme of evolution is built. 


J.T. M., in Lutheran Witness, St. Louis, Mo. 












For sale by 


CONCORDIA PUBLISHING HOUSE, 
St. Louis, Mo. 







[104] 









be te oh 
2 (Vv eI5 hia 


F Ho" 
> . 
Ms we oe eee tt 
i! : ‘ ie a 
, ns > Seo a ; 


ie 





~ 
-. . 
a a 
. 
| - a 
4 : 
Pi é ; 
j ae 
. ; ‘ ; i. 
— 4 ; 
’ ares a 
- 7 . 
; - 
“ my 
1 
4 Th ” 
j , we ' or 
a e ~ a 
‘4 r] « 
/ - Py. ae 
v 
‘ : ¢-t8 






ty a 
* . ' 7 1 
* i =i, ~ _ 
, ‘= aa fe 
i ~ . wv! oe ae, Yar His Py 
A Pa fs tn “OX ~ 











Date Due 


Ct E y Sy 





ee 


Te 


ae 


—_— . - 
an i a ein py Ee oe oT 








